Women's Health

TOPLINE:

Between 2010 and 2022, hospital-based obstetric care declined significantly across the United States, with 52.4% of rural hospitals and 35.7% of urban hospitals not offering obstetric services by 2022. Rural hospitals experienced a steeper increase in the percentage of facilities without obstetrics than urban counterparts, despite several national maternity care access initiatives.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 4964 United States short-term acute care hospitals, including 1982 in rural counties and 2982 in urban counties, analyzing data from 2010 to 2022.
• Analysis utilized American Hospital Association annual surveys and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider of Services files, applying an enhanced algorithm to identify hospital-based obstetric services availability.
• Hospital rurality classification followed Office of Management and Budget definitions, with urban hospitals located in metropolitan statistical areas having > 250,000 inhabitants and rural hospitals in nonmetropolitan areas with < 50,000 inhabitants.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 537 hospitals lost obstetric services between 2010 and 2022, with 238 rural hospitals and 299 urban hospitals affected, while only 138 hospitals gained obstetric services during this period.
• The percentage of hospitals without obstetrics increased steadily from 35.2% to 42.4% of all hospitals between 2010 and 2022, with rural hospitals consistently showing higher rates than urban facilities.
• By 2022, more than half (52.4%) of rural hospitals and over one third (35.7%) of urban hospitals did not offer obstetric care, representing a significant decline in access to maternal healthcare services.
• Urban areas showed greater potential for service recovery with 112 hospitals gaining obstetric services than only 26 rural hospitals during the study period.

IN PRACTICE:

“Access to obstetric care is an important determinant of maternal and infant health outcomes, and amidst a maternal health crisis in the US, hospital-based obstetric care has declined in both rural and urban communities,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Katy B. Kozhimannil, PhD, MPA, Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health in Minneapolis. It was published online on December 4 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by the lack of data on births outside hospital settings, which represent less than 2% of United States births. Additionally, the denominator for the study outcome declined each year because of hospital closures, particularly affecting rural hospitals. The researchers also noted that while rurality exists on a continuum, they applied a dichotomous county–based measure of hospital location. Furthermore, the hospital-level data did not contain patient-level information, making it impossible to analyze how changes in obstetric status affected patient outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health & Human Services under Public Health Service Cooperative Agreement. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Ballad Health, and the Commonwealth Fund outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving personal fees from the American Institute of Biological Sciences on behalf of March of Dimes as a grant reviewer. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Between 2010 and 2022, hospital-based obstetric care declined significantly across the United States, with 52.4% of rural hospitals and 35.7% of urban hospitals not offering obstetric services by 2022. Rural hospitals experienced a steeper increase in the percentage of facilities without obstetrics than urban counterparts, despite several national maternity care access initiatives.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 4964 United States short-term acute care hospitals, including 1982 in rural counties and 2982 in urban counties, analyzing data from 2010 to 2022.
• Analysis utilized American Hospital Association annual surveys and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider of Services files, applying an enhanced algorithm to identify hospital-based obstetric services availability.
• Hospital rurality classification followed Office of Management and Budget definitions, with urban hospitals located in metropolitan statistical areas having > 250,000 inhabitants and rural hospitals in nonmetropolitan areas with < 50,000 inhabitants.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 537 hospitals lost obstetric services between 2010 and 2022, with 238 rural hospitals and 299 urban hospitals affected, while only 138 hospitals gained obstetric services during this period.
• The percentage of hospitals without obstetrics increased steadily from 35.2% to 42.4% of all hospitals between 2010 and 2022, with rural hospitals consistently showing higher rates than urban facilities.
• By 2022, more than half (52.4%) of rural hospitals and over one third (35.7%) of urban hospitals did not offer obstetric care, representing a significant decline in access to maternal healthcare services.
• Urban areas showed greater potential for service recovery with 112 hospitals gaining obstetric services than only 26 rural hospitals during the study period.

IN PRACTICE:

“Access to obstetric care is an important determinant of maternal and infant health outcomes, and amidst a maternal health crisis in the US, hospital-based obstetric care has declined in both rural and urban communities,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Katy B. Kozhimannil, PhD, MPA, Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health in Minneapolis. It was published online on December 4 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by the lack of data on births outside hospital settings, which represent less than 2% of United States births. Additionally, the denominator for the study outcome declined each year because of hospital closures, particularly affecting rural hospitals. The researchers also noted that while rurality exists on a continuum, they applied a dichotomous county–based measure of hospital location. Furthermore, the hospital-level data did not contain patient-level information, making it impossible to analyze how changes in obstetric status affected patient outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health & Human Services under Public Health Service Cooperative Agreement. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Ballad Health, and the Commonwealth Fund outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving personal fees from the American Institute of Biological Sciences on behalf of March of Dimes as a grant reviewer. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Between 2010 and 2022, hospital-based obstetric care declined significantly across the United States, with 52.4% of rural hospitals and 35.7% of urban hospitals not offering obstetric services by 2022. Rural hospitals experienced a steeper increase in the percentage of facilities without obstetrics than urban counterparts, despite several national maternity care access initiatives.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 4964 United States short-term acute care hospitals, including 1982 in rural counties and 2982 in urban counties, analyzing data from 2010 to 2022.
• Analysis utilized American Hospital Association annual surveys and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider of Services files, applying an enhanced algorithm to identify hospital-based obstetric services availability.
• Hospital rurality classification followed Office of Management and Budget definitions, with urban hospitals located in metropolitan statistical areas having > 250,000 inhabitants and rural hospitals in nonmetropolitan areas with < 50,000 inhabitants.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 537 hospitals lost obstetric services between 2010 and 2022, with 238 rural hospitals and 299 urban hospitals affected, while only 138 hospitals gained obstetric services during this period.
• The percentage of hospitals without obstetrics increased steadily from 35.2% to 42.4% of all hospitals between 2010 and 2022, with rural hospitals consistently showing higher rates than urban facilities.
• By 2022, more than half (52.4%) of rural hospitals and over one third (35.7%) of urban hospitals did not offer obstetric care, representing a significant decline in access to maternal healthcare services.
• Urban areas showed greater potential for service recovery with 112 hospitals gaining obstetric services than only 26 rural hospitals during the study period.

IN PRACTICE:

“Access to obstetric care is an important determinant of maternal and infant health outcomes, and amidst a maternal health crisis in the US, hospital-based obstetric care has declined in both rural and urban communities,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Katy B. Kozhimannil, PhD, MPA, Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health in Minneapolis. It was published online on December 4 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by the lack of data on births outside hospital settings, which represent less than 2% of United States births. Additionally, the denominator for the study outcome declined each year because of hospital closures, particularly affecting rural hospitals. The researchers also noted that while rurality exists on a continuum, they applied a dichotomous county–based measure of hospital location. Furthermore, the hospital-level data did not contain patient-level information, making it impossible to analyze how changes in obstetric status affected patient outcomes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health & Human Services under Public Health Service Cooperative Agreement. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Ballad Health, and the Commonwealth Fund outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving personal fees from the American Institute of Biological Sciences on behalf of March of Dimes as a grant reviewer. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Digital lifestyle coaching through the Smarter Pregnancy program reduces maternal blood pressure (BP) by approximately 2 mm Hg during the first trimester of pregnancy. The program enhances lifestyle behaviors through personalized coaching on vegetable and fruit intake, smoking cessation, and alcohol abstinence.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Rotterdam Periconception Cohort between 2010 and 2019, including 132 pregnant women who used Smarter Pregnancy for 6-24 weeks in the intervention group and 1091 pregnant women in the control group.
• Participants’ outcomes included changes in systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial BPs between baseline and first trimester measurements, with median gestational age of 7 weeks at inclusion.
• Analysis tracked lifestyle behaviors in the intervention group at 12 and 24 weeks using risk scores for vegetables, fruits, smoking, and alcohol consumption.
• Multivariable analysis adjusted for baseline BP measurements, age, gestational age, geographic origin, parity, and conception mode to evaluate program effectiveness.

TAKEAWAY:

• The intervention group demonstrated significant reductions in systolic (beta, −2.34 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.67 to −0.01; P = .049), diastolic (beta, −2.00 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.57 to −0.45; P = .012), and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.22 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.81 to −0.52; P = .011) compared with controls.
• Among women who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART), significant reductions were observed in diastolic (beta, −2.38 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.20 to −0.56) and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.63 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.61 to −0.56).
• Program usage was associated with decreased lifestyle risk scores at 12 weeks (beta, −0.84; 95% CI, −1.19 to −0.49) and 24 weeks (beta, −1.07; 95% CI, −1.44 to −0.69), indicating improved lifestyle behaviors.
• Lifestyle risk scores significantly decreased in both ART and natural pregnancy subgroups after program completion.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that Smarter Pregnancy can be used to coach women on healthy lifestyle behaviors commencing from the preconception period onwards to improve BP outcomes. Of note, although implementing the program during [the] first trimester seems easier, initiating lifestyle coaching as early as preconceptional period can act as preventive measure against adverse health outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Batoul Hojeij, PhD, Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, participants in the intervention group might have had healthier lifestyles due to their motivation to use a digital coaching program. The sample size of naturally conceived pregnancies in the intervention group was small (n = 41), reducing statistical power for subgroup analysis. The high percentage of missing data for baseline BP measurements (64%) could have affected statistical power and led to potential bias, though multiple imputations were used to address this limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (DohART-NET) and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Erasmus MC. Kevin D Sinclair, PhD, DSc, received funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Digital lifestyle coaching through the Smarter Pregnancy program reduces maternal blood pressure (BP) by approximately 2 mm Hg during the first trimester of pregnancy. The program enhances lifestyle behaviors through personalized coaching on vegetable and fruit intake, smoking cessation, and alcohol abstinence.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Rotterdam Periconception Cohort between 2010 and 2019, including 132 pregnant women who used Smarter Pregnancy for 6-24 weeks in the intervention group and 1091 pregnant women in the control group.
• Participants’ outcomes included changes in systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial BPs between baseline and first trimester measurements, with median gestational age of 7 weeks at inclusion.
• Analysis tracked lifestyle behaviors in the intervention group at 12 and 24 weeks using risk scores for vegetables, fruits, smoking, and alcohol consumption.
• Multivariable analysis adjusted for baseline BP measurements, age, gestational age, geographic origin, parity, and conception mode to evaluate program effectiveness.

TAKEAWAY:

• The intervention group demonstrated significant reductions in systolic (beta, −2.34 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.67 to −0.01; P = .049), diastolic (beta, −2.00 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.57 to −0.45; P = .012), and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.22 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.81 to −0.52; P = .011) compared with controls.
• Among women who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART), significant reductions were observed in diastolic (beta, −2.38 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.20 to −0.56) and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.63 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.61 to −0.56).
• Program usage was associated with decreased lifestyle risk scores at 12 weeks (beta, −0.84; 95% CI, −1.19 to −0.49) and 24 weeks (beta, −1.07; 95% CI, −1.44 to −0.69), indicating improved lifestyle behaviors.
• Lifestyle risk scores significantly decreased in both ART and natural pregnancy subgroups after program completion.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that Smarter Pregnancy can be used to coach women on healthy lifestyle behaviors commencing from the preconception period onwards to improve BP outcomes. Of note, although implementing the program during [the] first trimester seems easier, initiating lifestyle coaching as early as preconceptional period can act as preventive measure against adverse health outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Batoul Hojeij, PhD, Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, participants in the intervention group might have had healthier lifestyles due to their motivation to use a digital coaching program. The sample size of naturally conceived pregnancies in the intervention group was small (n = 41), reducing statistical power for subgroup analysis. The high percentage of missing data for baseline BP measurements (64%) could have affected statistical power and led to potential bias, though multiple imputations were used to address this limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (DohART-NET) and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Erasmus MC. Kevin D Sinclair, PhD, DSc, received funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Digital lifestyle coaching through the Smarter Pregnancy program reduces maternal blood pressure (BP) by approximately 2 mm Hg during the first trimester of pregnancy. The program enhances lifestyle behaviors through personalized coaching on vegetable and fruit intake, smoking cessation, and alcohol abstinence.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Rotterdam Periconception Cohort between 2010 and 2019, including 132 pregnant women who used Smarter Pregnancy for 6-24 weeks in the intervention group and 1091 pregnant women in the control group.
• Participants’ outcomes included changes in systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial BPs between baseline and first trimester measurements, with median gestational age of 7 weeks at inclusion.
• Analysis tracked lifestyle behaviors in the intervention group at 12 and 24 weeks using risk scores for vegetables, fruits, smoking, and alcohol consumption.
• Multivariable analysis adjusted for baseline BP measurements, age, gestational age, geographic origin, parity, and conception mode to evaluate program effectiveness.

TAKEAWAY:

• The intervention group demonstrated significant reductions in systolic (beta, −2.34 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.67 to −0.01; P = .049), diastolic (beta, −2.00 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.57 to −0.45; P = .012), and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.22 mm Hg; 95% CI, −3.81 to −0.52; P = .011) compared with controls.
• Among women who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART), significant reductions were observed in diastolic (beta, −2.38 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.20 to −0.56) and mean arterial BP (beta, −2.63 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.61 to −0.56).
• Program usage was associated with decreased lifestyle risk scores at 12 weeks (beta, −0.84; 95% CI, −1.19 to −0.49) and 24 weeks (beta, −1.07; 95% CI, −1.44 to −0.69), indicating improved lifestyle behaviors.
• Lifestyle risk scores significantly decreased in both ART and natural pregnancy subgroups after program completion.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest that Smarter Pregnancy can be used to coach women on healthy lifestyle behaviors commencing from the preconception period onwards to improve BP outcomes. Of note, although implementing the program during [the] first trimester seems easier, initiating lifestyle coaching as early as preconceptional period can act as preventive measure against adverse health outcomes,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Batoul Hojeij, PhD, Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, participants in the intervention group might have had healthier lifestyles due to their motivation to use a digital coaching program. The sample size of naturally conceived pregnancies in the intervention group was small (n = 41), reducing statistical power for subgroup analysis. The high percentage of missing data for baseline BP measurements (64%) could have affected statistical power and led to potential bias, though multiple imputations were used to address this limitation.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (DohART-NET) and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the Erasmus MC. Kevin D Sinclair, PhD, DSc, received funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly present a fascinating effort, one that needs to be applauded and applauded again, and then we need to scratch our collective heads and ask, why did we do it and what did we learn? 

I’m referring to a report recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, “Long-Term Effect of Randomization to Calcium and Vitamin D Supplementation on Health in Older Women: Postintervention Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.” The title of this report does not do it justice. This was a massive effort — one could, I believe, even use the term Herculean — to ask an important question that was asked more than 20 years ago. 

This was a national women’s health initiative to answer these questions. The study looked at 36,282 postmenopausal women who, at the time of agreeing to be randomized in this trial, had no history of breast or colorectal cancer. This was a 7-year randomized intervention effort, and 40 centers across the United States participated, obviously funded by the government. Randomization was one-to-one to placebo or 1000 mg calcium and 400 international units of vitamin D3 daily. 

They looked at the incidence of colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and total cancer, and importantly as an endpoint, total cardiovascular disease and hip fractures. They didn’t comment on hip fractures in this particular analysis. Obviously, hip fractures relate to this question of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Here’s the bottom line: With a median follow-up now of 22.3 years — that’s not 2 years, but 22.3 years — there was a 7% decrease in cancer mortality in the population that received the calcium and vitamin D3. This is nothing to snicker at, and nothing at which to say, “Wow. That’s not important.” 

However, in this analysis involving several tens of thousands of women, there was a 6% increase in cardiovascular disease mortality noted and reported. Overall, there was no effect on all-cause mortality of this intervention, with a hazard ratio — you rarely see this — of 1.00.

There is much that can be said, but I will summarize my comments very briefly. Criticize this if you want. It’s not inappropriate to criticize, but what was the individual impact of the calcium vs vitamin D? If they had only used one vs the other, or used both but in separate arms of the trial, and you could have separated what might have caused the decrease in cancer mortality and not the increased cardiovascular disease… This was designed more than 20 years ago. That’s one point. 

The second is, how many more tens of thousands of patients would they have had to add to do this, and at what cost? This was a massive study, a national study, and a simple study in terms of the intervention. It was low risk except if you look at the long-term outcome. You can only imagine how much it would cost to do that study today — not the cost of the calcium, the vitamin D3, but the cost of doing the trial that was concluded to have no impact.

From a societal perspective, this was an important question to answer, certainly then. What did we learn and at what cost? The bottom line is that we have to figure out a way of answering these kinds of questions.

Perhaps now they should be from real-world data, looking at electronic medical records or at a variety of other population-based data so that we can get the answer — not in 20 years but in perhaps 2 months, because we’ve looked at the data using artificial intelligence to help us to answer these questions; and maybe not 36,000 patients but 360,000 individuals looked at over this period of time.

Again, I’m proposing an alternative solution because the questions that were asked 20 years ago remain important today. This cannot be the way that we, in the future, try to answer them, certainly from the perspective of cost and also the perspective of time to get the answers.

Let me conclude by, again, applauding these researchers because of the quality of the work they started out doing and ended up doing and reporting. Also, I think we’ve learned that we have to come up with alternative ways to answer what were important questions then and are important questions today.

Dr. Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly present a fascinating effort, one that needs to be applauded and applauded again, and then we need to scratch our collective heads and ask, why did we do it and what did we learn? 

I’m referring to a report recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, “Long-Term Effect of Randomization to Calcium and Vitamin D Supplementation on Health in Older Women: Postintervention Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.” The title of this report does not do it justice. This was a massive effort — one could, I believe, even use the term Herculean — to ask an important question that was asked more than 20 years ago. 

This was a national women’s health initiative to answer these questions. The study looked at 36,282 postmenopausal women who, at the time of agreeing to be randomized in this trial, had no history of breast or colorectal cancer. This was a 7-year randomized intervention effort, and 40 centers across the United States participated, obviously funded by the government. Randomization was one-to-one to placebo or 1000 mg calcium and 400 international units of vitamin D3 daily. 

They looked at the incidence of colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and total cancer, and importantly as an endpoint, total cardiovascular disease and hip fractures. They didn’t comment on hip fractures in this particular analysis. Obviously, hip fractures relate to this question of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Here’s the bottom line: With a median follow-up now of 22.3 years — that’s not 2 years, but 22.3 years — there was a 7% decrease in cancer mortality in the population that received the calcium and vitamin D3. This is nothing to snicker at, and nothing at which to say, “Wow. That’s not important.” 

However, in this analysis involving several tens of thousands of women, there was a 6% increase in cardiovascular disease mortality noted and reported. Overall, there was no effect on all-cause mortality of this intervention, with a hazard ratio — you rarely see this — of 1.00.

There is much that can be said, but I will summarize my comments very briefly. Criticize this if you want. It’s not inappropriate to criticize, but what was the individual impact of the calcium vs vitamin D? If they had only used one vs the other, or used both but in separate arms of the trial, and you could have separated what might have caused the decrease in cancer mortality and not the increased cardiovascular disease… This was designed more than 20 years ago. That’s one point. 

The second is, how many more tens of thousands of patients would they have had to add to do this, and at what cost? This was a massive study, a national study, and a simple study in terms of the intervention. It was low risk except if you look at the long-term outcome. You can only imagine how much it would cost to do that study today — not the cost of the calcium, the vitamin D3, but the cost of doing the trial that was concluded to have no impact.

From a societal perspective, this was an important question to answer, certainly then. What did we learn and at what cost? The bottom line is that we have to figure out a way of answering these kinds of questions.

Perhaps now they should be from real-world data, looking at electronic medical records or at a variety of other population-based data so that we can get the answer — not in 20 years but in perhaps 2 months, because we’ve looked at the data using artificial intelligence to help us to answer these questions; and maybe not 36,000 patients but 360,000 individuals looked at over this period of time.

Again, I’m proposing an alternative solution because the questions that were asked 20 years ago remain important today. This cannot be the way that we, in the future, try to answer them, certainly from the perspective of cost and also the perspective of time to get the answers.

Let me conclude by, again, applauding these researchers because of the quality of the work they started out doing and ended up doing and reporting. Also, I think we’ve learned that we have to come up with alternative ways to answer what were important questions then and are important questions today.

Dr. Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I want to briefly present a fascinating effort, one that needs to be applauded and applauded again, and then we need to scratch our collective heads and ask, why did we do it and what did we learn? 

I’m referring to a report recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, “Long-Term Effect of Randomization to Calcium and Vitamin D Supplementation on Health in Older Women: Postintervention Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.” The title of this report does not do it justice. This was a massive effort — one could, I believe, even use the term Herculean — to ask an important question that was asked more than 20 years ago. 

This was a national women’s health initiative to answer these questions. The study looked at 36,282 postmenopausal women who, at the time of agreeing to be randomized in this trial, had no history of breast or colorectal cancer. This was a 7-year randomized intervention effort, and 40 centers across the United States participated, obviously funded by the government. Randomization was one-to-one to placebo or 1000 mg calcium and 400 international units of vitamin D3 daily. 

They looked at the incidence of colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and total cancer, and importantly as an endpoint, total cardiovascular disease and hip fractures. They didn’t comment on hip fractures in this particular analysis. Obviously, hip fractures relate to this question of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Here’s the bottom line: With a median follow-up now of 22.3 years — that’s not 2 years, but 22.3 years — there was a 7% decrease in cancer mortality in the population that received the calcium and vitamin D3. This is nothing to snicker at, and nothing at which to say, “Wow. That’s not important.” 

However, in this analysis involving several tens of thousands of women, there was a 6% increase in cardiovascular disease mortality noted and reported. Overall, there was no effect on all-cause mortality of this intervention, with a hazard ratio — you rarely see this — of 1.00.

There is much that can be said, but I will summarize my comments very briefly. Criticize this if you want. It’s not inappropriate to criticize, but what was the individual impact of the calcium vs vitamin D? If they had only used one vs the other, or used both but in separate arms of the trial, and you could have separated what might have caused the decrease in cancer mortality and not the increased cardiovascular disease… This was designed more than 20 years ago. That’s one point. 

The second is, how many more tens of thousands of patients would they have had to add to do this, and at what cost? This was a massive study, a national study, and a simple study in terms of the intervention. It was low risk except if you look at the long-term outcome. You can only imagine how much it would cost to do that study today — not the cost of the calcium, the vitamin D3, but the cost of doing the trial that was concluded to have no impact.

From a societal perspective, this was an important question to answer, certainly then. What did we learn and at what cost? The bottom line is that we have to figure out a way of answering these kinds of questions.

Perhaps now they should be from real-world data, looking at electronic medical records or at a variety of other population-based data so that we can get the answer — not in 20 years but in perhaps 2 months, because we’ve looked at the data using artificial intelligence to help us to answer these questions; and maybe not 36,000 patients but 360,000 individuals looked at over this period of time.

Again, I’m proposing an alternative solution because the questions that were asked 20 years ago remain important today. This cannot be the way that we, in the future, try to answer them, certainly from the perspective of cost and also the perspective of time to get the answers.

Let me conclude by, again, applauding these researchers because of the quality of the work they started out doing and ended up doing and reporting. Also, I think we’ve learned that we have to come up with alternative ways to answer what were important questions then and are important questions today.

Dr. Markman, Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, disclosed ties with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.

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

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Canadian women aged 40-49 years at no or moderate risk for breast cancer who participated in organized mammography screening programs had a significantly greater breast cancer 10-year net survival than that of similar women who did not participate in such programs, according to data presented here at the Family Medicine Forum 2024. 

The data call into question draft guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which suggest not systematically screening women in this age group with mammography.

 

Overdiagnosis Challenged

Given that some jurisdictions in Canada have organized screening programs and some do not, there was an opportunity to compare breast cancer 10-year net survival of women who lived in jurisdictions with and without such programs, explained family physician Anna N. Wilkinson, MD, Ottawa regional cancer primary care lead and associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.

“The question was [whether] we could use big cancer data to figure out what’s going on,” she told this news organization. 

To investigate, Wilkinson and co-investigators reviewed data from the Canadian Cancer Registry linked to mortality information and assessed outcomes for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 years diagnosed with breast cancer from 2002 to 2007. They compared 10-year net survival estimates in jurisdictions with organized screening programs for those aged 40-49 years with the jurisdictions without them. 

“Net survival is important because it’s a survival measure that looks at only the cancer in question,” Wilkinson explained.

Investigators determined breast cancer to be the primary cause of 10-year mortality in women aged 40-49 years diagnosed with the disease (90.7% of deaths). 

Furthermore, the 10-year net survival in jurisdictions that screened these women (84.8%) was 1.9 percentage points higher than for jurisdictions that did not (82.9%). 

The difference in 10-year net survival favoring jurisdictions that offered screening was significant for women aged 45-49 years (2.6 percentage points) but not for those aged 40-44 years (0.9 percentage points).

Given that 90% of the deaths in women in their 40s who had a breast cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer, Wilkinson challenged the concept of women in their 40s being overdiagnosed with breast cancer, meaning that the cancers detected were indolent and did not require treatment nor result in death.

Earlier detection would generally mean finding disease at an earlier stage and the need for less invasive treatment, she noted. “And one of the biggest benefits [of screening women in their 40s] is that you have diagnosis at earlier stage disease, which means fewer intensive therapies, less time off work, less long-term morbidity, and less cost to our healthcare system.”

 

Modeling Shows Little Screening Benefit

The task force’s draft guidelines, released earlier this year, were based on evidence from 165 studies including randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, time-trend studies and modeling. They suggest not systematically screening women 40-49 with mammography who are not high risk.

Family physician Guylène Thériault, MD, chair of the task force and its breast cancer working group, and director of the Pedagogy Center at the Outaouais Campus, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, explained that to come to that conclusion, the task force had assessed the impact of organized screening for women in Canada aged 40-49 years and calculated the impact of mammography for every 1000 women over 10 years.

The model suggested that screening would yield 368 false positives, leading to 55 biopsies, and then to a breast cancer diagnosis in 19 women. Of those 19, the task force estimated 17 or 18 would not die of breast cancer over 10 years, two would be treated for breast cancer that would not have caused problems, ie, overdiagnosis, and one to two would die of breast cancer.

Without screening, on the other hand, the model suggested that 983 of 1000 women aged 40-49 years would not be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 17 would be, 15 of whom would not die from breast cancer over 10 years (no overdiagnosis, no deaths prevented) and two would die.

It is important that family physicians provide their patients with this information to assist in shared decision making about screening, Thériault said.

Wilkinson concluded that screening programs that included women in their 40s were associated with a significantly higher breast cancer 10-year survival, without an increased rate of diagnosis. She suggested that the study findings can inform the screening guidelines for women aged 40-49 years. 

The study was supported by the University of Ottawa’s department of family medicine. 

Wilkinson, MD, is a consultant for Thrive Health. Thériault, MD, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Canadian women aged 40-49 years at no or moderate risk for breast cancer who participated in organized mammography screening programs had a significantly greater breast cancer 10-year net survival than that of similar women who did not participate in such programs, according to data presented here at the Family Medicine Forum 2024. 

The data call into question draft guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which suggest not systematically screening women in this age group with mammography.

 

Overdiagnosis Challenged

Given that some jurisdictions in Canada have organized screening programs and some do not, there was an opportunity to compare breast cancer 10-year net survival of women who lived in jurisdictions with and without such programs, explained family physician Anna N. Wilkinson, MD, Ottawa regional cancer primary care lead and associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.

“The question was [whether] we could use big cancer data to figure out what’s going on,” she told this news organization. 

To investigate, Wilkinson and co-investigators reviewed data from the Canadian Cancer Registry linked to mortality information and assessed outcomes for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 years diagnosed with breast cancer from 2002 to 2007. They compared 10-year net survival estimates in jurisdictions with organized screening programs for those aged 40-49 years with the jurisdictions without them. 

“Net survival is important because it’s a survival measure that looks at only the cancer in question,” Wilkinson explained.

Investigators determined breast cancer to be the primary cause of 10-year mortality in women aged 40-49 years diagnosed with the disease (90.7% of deaths). 

Furthermore, the 10-year net survival in jurisdictions that screened these women (84.8%) was 1.9 percentage points higher than for jurisdictions that did not (82.9%). 

The difference in 10-year net survival favoring jurisdictions that offered screening was significant for women aged 45-49 years (2.6 percentage points) but not for those aged 40-44 years (0.9 percentage points).

Given that 90% of the deaths in women in their 40s who had a breast cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer, Wilkinson challenged the concept of women in their 40s being overdiagnosed with breast cancer, meaning that the cancers detected were indolent and did not require treatment nor result in death.

Earlier detection would generally mean finding disease at an earlier stage and the need for less invasive treatment, she noted. “And one of the biggest benefits [of screening women in their 40s] is that you have diagnosis at earlier stage disease, which means fewer intensive therapies, less time off work, less long-term morbidity, and less cost to our healthcare system.”

 

Modeling Shows Little Screening Benefit

The task force’s draft guidelines, released earlier this year, were based on evidence from 165 studies including randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, time-trend studies and modeling. They suggest not systematically screening women 40-49 with mammography who are not high risk.

Family physician Guylène Thériault, MD, chair of the task force and its breast cancer working group, and director of the Pedagogy Center at the Outaouais Campus, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, explained that to come to that conclusion, the task force had assessed the impact of organized screening for women in Canada aged 40-49 years and calculated the impact of mammography for every 1000 women over 10 years.

The model suggested that screening would yield 368 false positives, leading to 55 biopsies, and then to a breast cancer diagnosis in 19 women. Of those 19, the task force estimated 17 or 18 would not die of breast cancer over 10 years, two would be treated for breast cancer that would not have caused problems, ie, overdiagnosis, and one to two would die of breast cancer.

Without screening, on the other hand, the model suggested that 983 of 1000 women aged 40-49 years would not be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 17 would be, 15 of whom would not die from breast cancer over 10 years (no overdiagnosis, no deaths prevented) and two would die.

It is important that family physicians provide their patients with this information to assist in shared decision making about screening, Thériault said.

Wilkinson concluded that screening programs that included women in their 40s were associated with a significantly higher breast cancer 10-year survival, without an increased rate of diagnosis. She suggested that the study findings can inform the screening guidelines for women aged 40-49 years. 

The study was supported by the University of Ottawa’s department of family medicine. 

Wilkinson, MD, is a consultant for Thrive Health. Thériault, MD, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Canadian women aged 40-49 years at no or moderate risk for breast cancer who participated in organized mammography screening programs had a significantly greater breast cancer 10-year net survival than that of similar women who did not participate in such programs, according to data presented here at the Family Medicine Forum 2024. 

The data call into question draft guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which suggest not systematically screening women in this age group with mammography.

 

Overdiagnosis Challenged

Given that some jurisdictions in Canada have organized screening programs and some do not, there was an opportunity to compare breast cancer 10-year net survival of women who lived in jurisdictions with and without such programs, explained family physician Anna N. Wilkinson, MD, Ottawa regional cancer primary care lead and associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.

“The question was [whether] we could use big cancer data to figure out what’s going on,” she told this news organization. 

To investigate, Wilkinson and co-investigators reviewed data from the Canadian Cancer Registry linked to mortality information and assessed outcomes for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 years diagnosed with breast cancer from 2002 to 2007. They compared 10-year net survival estimates in jurisdictions with organized screening programs for those aged 40-49 years with the jurisdictions without them. 

“Net survival is important because it’s a survival measure that looks at only the cancer in question,” Wilkinson explained.

Investigators determined breast cancer to be the primary cause of 10-year mortality in women aged 40-49 years diagnosed with the disease (90.7% of deaths). 

Furthermore, the 10-year net survival in jurisdictions that screened these women (84.8%) was 1.9 percentage points higher than for jurisdictions that did not (82.9%). 

The difference in 10-year net survival favoring jurisdictions that offered screening was significant for women aged 45-49 years (2.6 percentage points) but not for those aged 40-44 years (0.9 percentage points).

Given that 90% of the deaths in women in their 40s who had a breast cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer, Wilkinson challenged the concept of women in their 40s being overdiagnosed with breast cancer, meaning that the cancers detected were indolent and did not require treatment nor result in death.

Earlier detection would generally mean finding disease at an earlier stage and the need for less invasive treatment, she noted. “And one of the biggest benefits [of screening women in their 40s] is that you have diagnosis at earlier stage disease, which means fewer intensive therapies, less time off work, less long-term morbidity, and less cost to our healthcare system.”

 

Modeling Shows Little Screening Benefit

The task force’s draft guidelines, released earlier this year, were based on evidence from 165 studies including randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, time-trend studies and modeling. They suggest not systematically screening women 40-49 with mammography who are not high risk.

Family physician Guylène Thériault, MD, chair of the task force and its breast cancer working group, and director of the Pedagogy Center at the Outaouais Campus, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, explained that to come to that conclusion, the task force had assessed the impact of organized screening for women in Canada aged 40-49 years and calculated the impact of mammography for every 1000 women over 10 years.

The model suggested that screening would yield 368 false positives, leading to 55 biopsies, and then to a breast cancer diagnosis in 19 women. Of those 19, the task force estimated 17 or 18 would not die of breast cancer over 10 years, two would be treated for breast cancer that would not have caused problems, ie, overdiagnosis, and one to two would die of breast cancer.

Without screening, on the other hand, the model suggested that 983 of 1000 women aged 40-49 years would not be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 17 would be, 15 of whom would not die from breast cancer over 10 years (no overdiagnosis, no deaths prevented) and two would die.

It is important that family physicians provide their patients with this information to assist in shared decision making about screening, Thériault said.

Wilkinson concluded that screening programs that included women in their 40s were associated with a significantly higher breast cancer 10-year survival, without an increased rate of diagnosis. She suggested that the study findings can inform the screening guidelines for women aged 40-49 years. 

The study was supported by the University of Ottawa’s department of family medicine. 

Wilkinson, MD, is a consultant for Thrive Health. Thériault, MD, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In older postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes (T2D), pyridoxamine treatment has potential to prevent fractures and protect bone tissue by targeting advanced glycation end products and also lowers levels of A1c, an early glycation product.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite greater bone density and low bone turnover, people with T2D have increased fractures risk and higher associated mortality, but previous research linking advanced glycation end products (AGEs) to bone fragility suggests an AGE inhibitor could be a novel therapeutic strategy to prevent the accumulation of AGE in bone tissue.
• This randomized clinical trial, conducted at the Metabolic Bone Disease Unit of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, from December 2017 to February 2021, assessed the efficacy of the vitamin B6 metabolite pyridoxamine, an AGE inhibitor, in promoting bone formation in 55 older postmenopausal women with T2D.
• The participants received either 200 mg of oral pyridoxamine dihydrochloride (n = 27; mean age, 75.6 years) or matching placebo tablets (n = 28; mean age, 73.1 years) twice daily for 1 year.
• The primary outcome was the change in the levels of the bone formation marker Procollagen Type I Intact N-terminal Propeptide (P1NP) from baseline to after 12 months of treatment.
• Other outcomes included changes in bone mineral density measured at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and 1/3 radius using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry; A1c levels; and skin autofluorescence at 12 months, a surrogate for bone AGEs. The safety of pyridoxamine was evaluated by monitoring neurologic findings and adverse events because high doses of the parent vitamin B6 have been reported to cause neurotoxicity.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 months, pyridoxamine treatment increased P1NP levels by 23% (P = .028) compared with 4.1% with placebo (P = .576), a “nearly significant difference.”
• Bone mineral density at the femoral neck increased by 2.64% with pyridoxamine but decreased by 0.91% with placebo (P = .007), with no changes at the lumbar spine, total hip, or 1/3 radius. The levels of bone resorption markers or skin autofluorescence were not significantly different between the groups.
• A1c levels decreased by 0.38% in the pyridoxamine group and correlated with increased P1NP levels, compared with a 0.05% increase in the placebo group (P = .04).
• Pyridoxamine was well tolerated. Four serious adverse events were reported in the pyridoxamine group and seven in the placebo group; none of these were related to the trial treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] findings suggest that AGE inhibition might clinically improve the low bone formation state of T2D, and that PM [pyridoxamine] might warrant further investigation as a potential disease mechanism-directed approach for the therapy of T2D bone fragility,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aiden V. Brossfield, Metabolic Bone Disease Unit, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings were preliminary. The study’s small sample size and individual variability led to a lack of statistical significance. The exclusion of men may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The short duration of 1 year may have been insufficient for detecting changes in skin AGEs. The levels of circulating AGEs or pyridoxamine were not measured, which could have provided additional insights.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the US National Institute on Aging. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In older postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes (T2D), pyridoxamine treatment has potential to prevent fractures and protect bone tissue by targeting advanced glycation end products and also lowers levels of A1c, an early glycation product.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite greater bone density and low bone turnover, people with T2D have increased fractures risk and higher associated mortality, but previous research linking advanced glycation end products (AGEs) to bone fragility suggests an AGE inhibitor could be a novel therapeutic strategy to prevent the accumulation of AGE in bone tissue.
• This randomized clinical trial, conducted at the Metabolic Bone Disease Unit of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, from December 2017 to February 2021, assessed the efficacy of the vitamin B6 metabolite pyridoxamine, an AGE inhibitor, in promoting bone formation in 55 older postmenopausal women with T2D.
• The participants received either 200 mg of oral pyridoxamine dihydrochloride (n = 27; mean age, 75.6 years) or matching placebo tablets (n = 28; mean age, 73.1 years) twice daily for 1 year.
• The primary outcome was the change in the levels of the bone formation marker Procollagen Type I Intact N-terminal Propeptide (P1NP) from baseline to after 12 months of treatment.
• Other outcomes included changes in bone mineral density measured at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and 1/3 radius using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry; A1c levels; and skin autofluorescence at 12 months, a surrogate for bone AGEs. The safety of pyridoxamine was evaluated by monitoring neurologic findings and adverse events because high doses of the parent vitamin B6 have been reported to cause neurotoxicity.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 months, pyridoxamine treatment increased P1NP levels by 23% (P = .028) compared with 4.1% with placebo (P = .576), a “nearly significant difference.”
• Bone mineral density at the femoral neck increased by 2.64% with pyridoxamine but decreased by 0.91% with placebo (P = .007), with no changes at the lumbar spine, total hip, or 1/3 radius. The levels of bone resorption markers or skin autofluorescence were not significantly different between the groups.
• A1c levels decreased by 0.38% in the pyridoxamine group and correlated with increased P1NP levels, compared with a 0.05% increase in the placebo group (P = .04).
• Pyridoxamine was well tolerated. Four serious adverse events were reported in the pyridoxamine group and seven in the placebo group; none of these were related to the trial treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] findings suggest that AGE inhibition might clinically improve the low bone formation state of T2D, and that PM [pyridoxamine] might warrant further investigation as a potential disease mechanism-directed approach for the therapy of T2D bone fragility,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aiden V. Brossfield, Metabolic Bone Disease Unit, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings were preliminary. The study’s small sample size and individual variability led to a lack of statistical significance. The exclusion of men may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The short duration of 1 year may have been insufficient for detecting changes in skin AGEs. The levels of circulating AGEs or pyridoxamine were not measured, which could have provided additional insights.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the US National Institute on Aging. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In older postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes (T2D), pyridoxamine treatment has potential to prevent fractures and protect bone tissue by targeting advanced glycation end products and also lowers levels of A1c, an early glycation product.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite greater bone density and low bone turnover, people with T2D have increased fractures risk and higher associated mortality, but previous research linking advanced glycation end products (AGEs) to bone fragility suggests an AGE inhibitor could be a novel therapeutic strategy to prevent the accumulation of AGE in bone tissue.
• This randomized clinical trial, conducted at the Metabolic Bone Disease Unit of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, from December 2017 to February 2021, assessed the efficacy of the vitamin B6 metabolite pyridoxamine, an AGE inhibitor, in promoting bone formation in 55 older postmenopausal women with T2D.
• The participants received either 200 mg of oral pyridoxamine dihydrochloride (n = 27; mean age, 75.6 years) or matching placebo tablets (n = 28; mean age, 73.1 years) twice daily for 1 year.
• The primary outcome was the change in the levels of the bone formation marker Procollagen Type I Intact N-terminal Propeptide (P1NP) from baseline to after 12 months of treatment.
• Other outcomes included changes in bone mineral density measured at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and 1/3 radius using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry; A1c levels; and skin autofluorescence at 12 months, a surrogate for bone AGEs. The safety of pyridoxamine was evaluated by monitoring neurologic findings and adverse events because high doses of the parent vitamin B6 have been reported to cause neurotoxicity.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 months, pyridoxamine treatment increased P1NP levels by 23% (P = .028) compared with 4.1% with placebo (P = .576), a “nearly significant difference.”
• Bone mineral density at the femoral neck increased by 2.64% with pyridoxamine but decreased by 0.91% with placebo (P = .007), with no changes at the lumbar spine, total hip, or 1/3 radius. The levels of bone resorption markers or skin autofluorescence were not significantly different between the groups.
• A1c levels decreased by 0.38% in the pyridoxamine group and correlated with increased P1NP levels, compared with a 0.05% increase in the placebo group (P = .04).
• Pyridoxamine was well tolerated. Four serious adverse events were reported in the pyridoxamine group and seven in the placebo group; none of these were related to the trial treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] findings suggest that AGE inhibition might clinically improve the low bone formation state of T2D, and that PM [pyridoxamine] might warrant further investigation as a potential disease mechanism-directed approach for the therapy of T2D bone fragility,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aiden V. Brossfield, Metabolic Bone Disease Unit, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings were preliminary. The study’s small sample size and individual variability led to a lack of statistical significance. The exclusion of men may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The short duration of 1 year may have been insufficient for detecting changes in skin AGEs. The levels of circulating AGEs or pyridoxamine were not measured, which could have provided additional insights.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the US National Institute on Aging. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued an updated draft recommendation statement advising early screening for syphilis in all pregnant persons with no signs or symptoms of syphilis, regardless of risk. Those with abnormal screening results should receive “timely, equitable, and evidence-based evaluation and treatment for syphilis,” it advises.

Reaffirming the task force’s 2018 statement, in which an evidence review found the benefits of screening substantially outweighed the harms, the current draft is based on no substantial new data. It is open for public input until December 23.

“Congenital syphilis infection is still an important health problem, and rates are not decreasing as they should,” said USPSTF panel member Carlos R. Jaén, MD, PhD, MS, Dr. and Mrs. James L. Holly Distinguished Chair in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. “Cases are 10 times higher today than they were a decade ago, despite the harmful consequences of syphilis infection in mother and baby and despite it being a preventable and easily treated condition.”

The statement notes that untreated syphilis infection in mothers is associated with miscarriage, premature birth, low birth weight, stillbirth, and neonatal death. Syphilis infection is linked to significant abnormalities in infants such as deformed bones, anemia, enlarged liver and spleen, jaundice, meningitis, and brain and nerve problems resulting in permanent vision or hearing loss.

The USPSTF statement aligns with the recommendations of other healthcare organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which issued a clinical practice advisory on prenatal syphilis screening in April 2024.

This advisory recommends obstetric care providers screen all pregnant individuals serologically for syphilis at the first prenatal care visit, with universal rescreening during the third trimester and at birth rather than targeted risk-based testing.

The advisory notes that two in five infants with congenital syphilis were born to persons who received no prenatal care. It urges making any healthcare encounter during pregnancy — in emergency departments, jails, syringe service programs, and maternal and child health clinics — an opportunity to screen for syphilis.

So far, there is no official guidance on preconception screening for persons planning a pregnancy, according to Allison Bryant Mantha, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Mass General Brigham health system and an associate professor at Harvard School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, who coauthored the ACOG advisory.

But Lynn M. Yee, MD, MPH, an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of the Northwestern Medicine Women’s Infectious Disease Program in Chicago, Illinois, said syphilis testing could easily be part of a prepregnancy “bucket” of health checkup items along with other sexually transmitted infections and blood pressure.

 

By the Numbers

In 2022, there were 3761 cases of congenital syphilis in the United States, including 231 stillbirths and 51 infant deaths — the highest number reported in more than 30 years and more than 10 times that reported in 2012.

At play may be social, economic, and immigration status factors creating barriers to prenatal care as well as declines in prevention infrastructure and resources.

Although most syphilis cases occur in men, the increase in incidence rate in women was two to four times higher than that of men from 2017 to 2021.

 

Why Such Persistently High Rates?

Despite a widely available test and cost-effective penicillin treatment covered by most insurance, congenital syphilis remains a challenge. According to Bryant, many mothers are still presenting for care and testing late in pregnancy. “Differential access to care is just one of many reasons,” she said.

Stigma and bias may also play a part, according to Yee. “Some clinicians may think their patient population is not the kind to be at risk and doesn’t need to be screened,” she said. Furthermore, screening is not a one-off test but a two-step process, and serology results can be hard to understand and easy to misinterpret.

In addition, some situations may promote ongoing disease, according to Yee. “Reinfection can occur after treatment if a patient keeps returning to a partner who refuses treatment,” Yee said.

On an optimistic note, however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in some areas increases in newborn syphilis cases appear to be slowing — with a 3% increase in 2022 than with a 30% or higher annual increases in previous years. In 2020-2021, for example, congenital cases rose by 32% and resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths.

 

Going Forward

The USPSTF statement identifies knowledge gaps. These include studies to evaluate the benefits and harms of repeat screening later in pregnancy and to evaluate the benefits and harms of such strategies as rapid point-of-care tests. The USPSTF also called for research on disparities in syphilis incidence and screening rates to reduce these disparities in populations.

Within these vulnerable groups, the CDC noted that babies born to Black, Hispanic, or Native American/Alaska Native mothers in 2021 were as much as eight times more likely to have congenital syphilis than those born to their White counterparts.

Jaén, Bryant, and Yee had no competing interests relevant to their comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued an updated draft recommendation statement advising early screening for syphilis in all pregnant persons with no signs or symptoms of syphilis, regardless of risk. Those with abnormal screening results should receive “timely, equitable, and evidence-based evaluation and treatment for syphilis,” it advises.

Reaffirming the task force’s 2018 statement, in which an evidence review found the benefits of screening substantially outweighed the harms, the current draft is based on no substantial new data. It is open for public input until December 23.

“Congenital syphilis infection is still an important health problem, and rates are not decreasing as they should,” said USPSTF panel member Carlos R. Jaén, MD, PhD, MS, Dr. and Mrs. James L. Holly Distinguished Chair in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. “Cases are 10 times higher today than they were a decade ago, despite the harmful consequences of syphilis infection in mother and baby and despite it being a preventable and easily treated condition.”

The statement notes that untreated syphilis infection in mothers is associated with miscarriage, premature birth, low birth weight, stillbirth, and neonatal death. Syphilis infection is linked to significant abnormalities in infants such as deformed bones, anemia, enlarged liver and spleen, jaundice, meningitis, and brain and nerve problems resulting in permanent vision or hearing loss.

The USPSTF statement aligns with the recommendations of other healthcare organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which issued a clinical practice advisory on prenatal syphilis screening in April 2024.

This advisory recommends obstetric care providers screen all pregnant individuals serologically for syphilis at the first prenatal care visit, with universal rescreening during the third trimester and at birth rather than targeted risk-based testing.

The advisory notes that two in five infants with congenital syphilis were born to persons who received no prenatal care. It urges making any healthcare encounter during pregnancy — in emergency departments, jails, syringe service programs, and maternal and child health clinics — an opportunity to screen for syphilis.

So far, there is no official guidance on preconception screening for persons planning a pregnancy, according to Allison Bryant Mantha, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Mass General Brigham health system and an associate professor at Harvard School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, who coauthored the ACOG advisory.

But Lynn M. Yee, MD, MPH, an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of the Northwestern Medicine Women’s Infectious Disease Program in Chicago, Illinois, said syphilis testing could easily be part of a prepregnancy “bucket” of health checkup items along with other sexually transmitted infections and blood pressure.

 

By the Numbers

In 2022, there were 3761 cases of congenital syphilis in the United States, including 231 stillbirths and 51 infant deaths — the highest number reported in more than 30 years and more than 10 times that reported in 2012.

At play may be social, economic, and immigration status factors creating barriers to prenatal care as well as declines in prevention infrastructure and resources.

Although most syphilis cases occur in men, the increase in incidence rate in women was two to four times higher than that of men from 2017 to 2021.

 

Why Such Persistently High Rates?

Despite a widely available test and cost-effective penicillin treatment covered by most insurance, congenital syphilis remains a challenge. According to Bryant, many mothers are still presenting for care and testing late in pregnancy. “Differential access to care is just one of many reasons,” she said.

Stigma and bias may also play a part, according to Yee. “Some clinicians may think their patient population is not the kind to be at risk and doesn’t need to be screened,” she said. Furthermore, screening is not a one-off test but a two-step process, and serology results can be hard to understand and easy to misinterpret.

In addition, some situations may promote ongoing disease, according to Yee. “Reinfection can occur after treatment if a patient keeps returning to a partner who refuses treatment,” Yee said.

On an optimistic note, however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in some areas increases in newborn syphilis cases appear to be slowing — with a 3% increase in 2022 than with a 30% or higher annual increases in previous years. In 2020-2021, for example, congenital cases rose by 32% and resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths.

 

Going Forward

The USPSTF statement identifies knowledge gaps. These include studies to evaluate the benefits and harms of repeat screening later in pregnancy and to evaluate the benefits and harms of such strategies as rapid point-of-care tests. The USPSTF also called for research on disparities in syphilis incidence and screening rates to reduce these disparities in populations.

Within these vulnerable groups, the CDC noted that babies born to Black, Hispanic, or Native American/Alaska Native mothers in 2021 were as much as eight times more likely to have congenital syphilis than those born to their White counterparts.

Jaén, Bryant, and Yee had no competing interests relevant to their comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued an updated draft recommendation statement advising early screening for syphilis in all pregnant persons with no signs or symptoms of syphilis, regardless of risk. Those with abnormal screening results should receive “timely, equitable, and evidence-based evaluation and treatment for syphilis,” it advises.

Reaffirming the task force’s 2018 statement, in which an evidence review found the benefits of screening substantially outweighed the harms, the current draft is based on no substantial new data. It is open for public input until December 23.

“Congenital syphilis infection is still an important health problem, and rates are not decreasing as they should,” said USPSTF panel member Carlos R. Jaén, MD, PhD, MS, Dr. and Mrs. James L. Holly Distinguished Chair in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. “Cases are 10 times higher today than they were a decade ago, despite the harmful consequences of syphilis infection in mother and baby and despite it being a preventable and easily treated condition.”

The statement notes that untreated syphilis infection in mothers is associated with miscarriage, premature birth, low birth weight, stillbirth, and neonatal death. Syphilis infection is linked to significant abnormalities in infants such as deformed bones, anemia, enlarged liver and spleen, jaundice, meningitis, and brain and nerve problems resulting in permanent vision or hearing loss.

The USPSTF statement aligns with the recommendations of other healthcare organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which issued a clinical practice advisory on prenatal syphilis screening in April 2024.

This advisory recommends obstetric care providers screen all pregnant individuals serologically for syphilis at the first prenatal care visit, with universal rescreening during the third trimester and at birth rather than targeted risk-based testing.

The advisory notes that two in five infants with congenital syphilis were born to persons who received no prenatal care. It urges making any healthcare encounter during pregnancy — in emergency departments, jails, syringe service programs, and maternal and child health clinics — an opportunity to screen for syphilis.

So far, there is no official guidance on preconception screening for persons planning a pregnancy, according to Allison Bryant Mantha, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Mass General Brigham health system and an associate professor at Harvard School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, who coauthored the ACOG advisory.

But Lynn M. Yee, MD, MPH, an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of the Northwestern Medicine Women’s Infectious Disease Program in Chicago, Illinois, said syphilis testing could easily be part of a prepregnancy “bucket” of health checkup items along with other sexually transmitted infections and blood pressure.

 

By the Numbers

In 2022, there were 3761 cases of congenital syphilis in the United States, including 231 stillbirths and 51 infant deaths — the highest number reported in more than 30 years and more than 10 times that reported in 2012.

At play may be social, economic, and immigration status factors creating barriers to prenatal care as well as declines in prevention infrastructure and resources.

Although most syphilis cases occur in men, the increase in incidence rate in women was two to four times higher than that of men from 2017 to 2021.

 

Why Such Persistently High Rates?

Despite a widely available test and cost-effective penicillin treatment covered by most insurance, congenital syphilis remains a challenge. According to Bryant, many mothers are still presenting for care and testing late in pregnancy. “Differential access to care is just one of many reasons,” she said.

Stigma and bias may also play a part, according to Yee. “Some clinicians may think their patient population is not the kind to be at risk and doesn’t need to be screened,” she said. Furthermore, screening is not a one-off test but a two-step process, and serology results can be hard to understand and easy to misinterpret.

In addition, some situations may promote ongoing disease, according to Yee. “Reinfection can occur after treatment if a patient keeps returning to a partner who refuses treatment,” Yee said.

On an optimistic note, however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in some areas increases in newborn syphilis cases appear to be slowing — with a 3% increase in 2022 than with a 30% or higher annual increases in previous years. In 2020-2021, for example, congenital cases rose by 32% and resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths.

 

Going Forward

The USPSTF statement identifies knowledge gaps. These include studies to evaluate the benefits and harms of repeat screening later in pregnancy and to evaluate the benefits and harms of such strategies as rapid point-of-care tests. The USPSTF also called for research on disparities in syphilis incidence and screening rates to reduce these disparities in populations.

Within these vulnerable groups, the CDC noted that babies born to Black, Hispanic, or Native American/Alaska Native mothers in 2021 were as much as eight times more likely to have congenital syphilis than those born to their White counterparts.

Jaén, Bryant, and Yee had no competing interests relevant to their comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Since the adoption of the most recent Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD 3.0) scoring system by the federal Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) in July 2023, the gender gap in liver transplants has narrowed, according to new research.

In particular, women are now more likely to be added to the waitlist for a liver transplant, more likely to receive a transplant, and less likely to fall off the waitlist because of death.

“MELD 3.0 improved access to transplantation for women, and now waitlist mortality and transplant rates for women more closely approximate the rates for men,” said lead author Allison Kwong, MD, assistant professor of medicine and transplant hepatologist at Stanford Medicine in California. 

“Overall transplant outcomes have also improved year over year,” said Kwong, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD). 

 

Changes in MELD and Transplant Numbers

MELD, which estimates liver failure severity and short-term survival in patients with chronic liver disease, has been used since 2002 to determine organ allocation priority for patients in the United States awaiting liver transplantation. Originally, the score incorporated three variables: creatinine, bilirubin, and the international normalized ratio (INR). MELDNa1, or MELD 2.0, was adopted in 2016 to add sodium. 

“Under this system, however, there have been sex-based disparities” with women receiving lower priority scores despite similar disease severity, said Kwong. 

“This has been attributed to several factors, such as the creatinine term in the MELD score underestimating renal dysfunction in women, height and body size differences, and differences in disease etiology, and how we’ve assigned exception points historically,” she reported. 

Men have had a lower pretransplant mortality rate and higher deceased donor transplant rates, she added. 

MELD 3.0 was developed to address these gender differences and other determinants of waitlist outcomes. The updated equation added 1.33 points for women, as well as adding other variables, such as albumin, interactions between bilirubin and sodium, and interactions between albumin and creatinine, to increase prediction accuracy. 

To observe the effects of the new system, Kwong and colleagues analyzed OPTN data for patients aged 12 years or older, focusing on the records of more than 20,300 newly registered liver transplant candidates, and about 18,700 transplant recipients, during the 12 months before and 12 months after MELD 3.0 was implemented.

After the switch, 43.7% of newly registered liver transplant candidates were women, compared with 40.4% before the switch. At registration, the median age was 55, both before and after the change in policy, and the median MELD score changed from 23 to 22 after implementation.

In addition, 42.1% of transplants occurred among women after MELD 3.0 implementation, as compared with 37.3% before. Overall, deceased donor transplant rates were similar for men and women after MELD 3.0 implementation.

The 90-day waitlist dropout rate — patients who died or became too sick to receive a transplant — decreased from 13.5% to 9.1% among women, which may be partially attributable to MELD 3.0, said Kwong. 

However, waitlist dropout rates also decreased among men, from 9.8% to 7.4%, probably because of improvements in technology, such as machine perfusion, which have increased the number of available livers, she added.

 

Disparities Continue to Exist 

Some disparities still exist. Although the total median MELD score at transplant decreased from 29 to 27, women still had a higher median score of 29 at transplant, compared with a median score of 27 among men.

“This indicates that there may still be differences in transplant access between the sexes,” Kwong said. “There are still body size differences that can affect the probability of transplant, and this would not be addressed by MELD 3.0.”

Additional transplant disparities exist related to other patient characteristics, such as age, race, and ethnicity. 

Future versions of MELD could potentially consider these factors, said session moderator Aleksander Krag, MD, PhD, MBA, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and secretary general of the European Association for the Study of the Liver, 2023-2025.

“There are infinite versions of MELD that can be made,” Kwong said. “It’s still early to see how MELD 3.0 will serve the system, but so far, so good.”

In a comment, Tamar Taddei, MD, professor of medicine in digestive diseases at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, who comoderated the session, noted the importance of using a MELD score that considers sex-based differences.

This study brings MELD 3.0 to its fruition by reducing the disparities experienced by women who were underserved by the previous scoring systems, she said. 

It was lovely to see that MELD 3.0 reduced the disparities with transplants, and also that the waitlist dropout was reduced — for both men and women,” Taddei said. “This change is a no-brainer.”

Kwong, Krag, and Taddei reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Since the adoption of the most recent Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD 3.0) scoring system by the federal Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) in July 2023, the gender gap in liver transplants has narrowed, according to new research.

In particular, women are now more likely to be added to the waitlist for a liver transplant, more likely to receive a transplant, and less likely to fall off the waitlist because of death.

“MELD 3.0 improved access to transplantation for women, and now waitlist mortality and transplant rates for women more closely approximate the rates for men,” said lead author Allison Kwong, MD, assistant professor of medicine and transplant hepatologist at Stanford Medicine in California. 

“Overall transplant outcomes have also improved year over year,” said Kwong, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD). 

 

Changes in MELD and Transplant Numbers

MELD, which estimates liver failure severity and short-term survival in patients with chronic liver disease, has been used since 2002 to determine organ allocation priority for patients in the United States awaiting liver transplantation. Originally, the score incorporated three variables: creatinine, bilirubin, and the international normalized ratio (INR). MELDNa1, or MELD 2.0, was adopted in 2016 to add sodium. 

“Under this system, however, there have been sex-based disparities” with women receiving lower priority scores despite similar disease severity, said Kwong. 

“This has been attributed to several factors, such as the creatinine term in the MELD score underestimating renal dysfunction in women, height and body size differences, and differences in disease etiology, and how we’ve assigned exception points historically,” she reported. 

Men have had a lower pretransplant mortality rate and higher deceased donor transplant rates, she added. 

MELD 3.0 was developed to address these gender differences and other determinants of waitlist outcomes. The updated equation added 1.33 points for women, as well as adding other variables, such as albumin, interactions between bilirubin and sodium, and interactions between albumin and creatinine, to increase prediction accuracy. 

To observe the effects of the new system, Kwong and colleagues analyzed OPTN data for patients aged 12 years or older, focusing on the records of more than 20,300 newly registered liver transplant candidates, and about 18,700 transplant recipients, during the 12 months before and 12 months after MELD 3.0 was implemented.

After the switch, 43.7% of newly registered liver transplant candidates were women, compared with 40.4% before the switch. At registration, the median age was 55, both before and after the change in policy, and the median MELD score changed from 23 to 22 after implementation.

In addition, 42.1% of transplants occurred among women after MELD 3.0 implementation, as compared with 37.3% before. Overall, deceased donor transplant rates were similar for men and women after MELD 3.0 implementation.

The 90-day waitlist dropout rate — patients who died or became too sick to receive a transplant — decreased from 13.5% to 9.1% among women, which may be partially attributable to MELD 3.0, said Kwong. 

However, waitlist dropout rates also decreased among men, from 9.8% to 7.4%, probably because of improvements in technology, such as machine perfusion, which have increased the number of available livers, she added.

 

Disparities Continue to Exist 

Some disparities still exist. Although the total median MELD score at transplant decreased from 29 to 27, women still had a higher median score of 29 at transplant, compared with a median score of 27 among men.

“This indicates that there may still be differences in transplant access between the sexes,” Kwong said. “There are still body size differences that can affect the probability of transplant, and this would not be addressed by MELD 3.0.”

Additional transplant disparities exist related to other patient characteristics, such as age, race, and ethnicity. 

Future versions of MELD could potentially consider these factors, said session moderator Aleksander Krag, MD, PhD, MBA, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and secretary general of the European Association for the Study of the Liver, 2023-2025.

“There are infinite versions of MELD that can be made,” Kwong said. “It’s still early to see how MELD 3.0 will serve the system, but so far, so good.”

In a comment, Tamar Taddei, MD, professor of medicine in digestive diseases at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, who comoderated the session, noted the importance of using a MELD score that considers sex-based differences.

This study brings MELD 3.0 to its fruition by reducing the disparities experienced by women who were underserved by the previous scoring systems, she said. 

It was lovely to see that MELD 3.0 reduced the disparities with transplants, and also that the waitlist dropout was reduced — for both men and women,” Taddei said. “This change is a no-brainer.”

Kwong, Krag, and Taddei reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Since the adoption of the most recent Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD 3.0) scoring system by the federal Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) in July 2023, the gender gap in liver transplants has narrowed, according to new research.

In particular, women are now more likely to be added to the waitlist for a liver transplant, more likely to receive a transplant, and less likely to fall off the waitlist because of death.

“MELD 3.0 improved access to transplantation for women, and now waitlist mortality and transplant rates for women more closely approximate the rates for men,” said lead author Allison Kwong, MD, assistant professor of medicine and transplant hepatologist at Stanford Medicine in California. 

“Overall transplant outcomes have also improved year over year,” said Kwong, who presented the findings at The Liver Meeting 2024: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD). 

 

Changes in MELD and Transplant Numbers

MELD, which estimates liver failure severity and short-term survival in patients with chronic liver disease, has been used since 2002 to determine organ allocation priority for patients in the United States awaiting liver transplantation. Originally, the score incorporated three variables: creatinine, bilirubin, and the international normalized ratio (INR). MELDNa1, or MELD 2.0, was adopted in 2016 to add sodium. 

“Under this system, however, there have been sex-based disparities” with women receiving lower priority scores despite similar disease severity, said Kwong. 

“This has been attributed to several factors, such as the creatinine term in the MELD score underestimating renal dysfunction in women, height and body size differences, and differences in disease etiology, and how we’ve assigned exception points historically,” she reported. 

Men have had a lower pretransplant mortality rate and higher deceased donor transplant rates, she added. 

MELD 3.0 was developed to address these gender differences and other determinants of waitlist outcomes. The updated equation added 1.33 points for women, as well as adding other variables, such as albumin, interactions between bilirubin and sodium, and interactions between albumin and creatinine, to increase prediction accuracy. 

To observe the effects of the new system, Kwong and colleagues analyzed OPTN data for patients aged 12 years or older, focusing on the records of more than 20,300 newly registered liver transplant candidates, and about 18,700 transplant recipients, during the 12 months before and 12 months after MELD 3.0 was implemented.

After the switch, 43.7% of newly registered liver transplant candidates were women, compared with 40.4% before the switch. At registration, the median age was 55, both before and after the change in policy, and the median MELD score changed from 23 to 22 after implementation.

In addition, 42.1% of transplants occurred among women after MELD 3.0 implementation, as compared with 37.3% before. Overall, deceased donor transplant rates were similar for men and women after MELD 3.0 implementation.

The 90-day waitlist dropout rate — patients who died or became too sick to receive a transplant — decreased from 13.5% to 9.1% among women, which may be partially attributable to MELD 3.0, said Kwong. 

However, waitlist dropout rates also decreased among men, from 9.8% to 7.4%, probably because of improvements in technology, such as machine perfusion, which have increased the number of available livers, she added.

 

Disparities Continue to Exist 

Some disparities still exist. Although the total median MELD score at transplant decreased from 29 to 27, women still had a higher median score of 29 at transplant, compared with a median score of 27 among men.

“This indicates that there may still be differences in transplant access between the sexes,” Kwong said. “There are still body size differences that can affect the probability of transplant, and this would not be addressed by MELD 3.0.”

Additional transplant disparities exist related to other patient characteristics, such as age, race, and ethnicity. 

Future versions of MELD could potentially consider these factors, said session moderator Aleksander Krag, MD, PhD, MBA, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and secretary general of the European Association for the Study of the Liver, 2023-2025.

“There are infinite versions of MELD that can be made,” Kwong said. “It’s still early to see how MELD 3.0 will serve the system, but so far, so good.”

In a comment, Tamar Taddei, MD, professor of medicine in digestive diseases at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, who comoderated the session, noted the importance of using a MELD score that considers sex-based differences.

This study brings MELD 3.0 to its fruition by reducing the disparities experienced by women who were underserved by the previous scoring systems, she said. 

It was lovely to see that MELD 3.0 reduced the disparities with transplants, and also that the waitlist dropout was reduced — for both men and women,” Taddei said. “This change is a no-brainer.”

Kwong, Krag, and Taddei reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has expanded two cancer genetic risk assessment guidelines to meet the growing understanding of hereditary cancer risk and use of genetic tests in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. 

Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.

For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.

“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.

Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants. 

For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.” 

“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release. 

“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.

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

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has expanded two cancer genetic risk assessment guidelines to meet the growing understanding of hereditary cancer risk and use of genetic tests in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. 

Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.

For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.

“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.

Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants. 

For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.” 

“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release. 

“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.

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

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has expanded two cancer genetic risk assessment guidelines to meet the growing understanding of hereditary cancer risk and use of genetic tests in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. 

Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.

For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.

“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.

Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants. 

For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.” 

“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release. 

“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.

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

TOPLINE:

Levonorgestrel intrauterine devices (IUDs) are associated with significantly more reports of acne, alopecia, and hirsutism compared with copper IUDs, with some differences between the available levonorgestrel IUDs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) through December 2023 for adverse events associated with levonorgestrel IUDs where IUDs were the only suspected cause, focusing on acne, alopecia, and hirsutism.
• They included 139,348 reports for the levonorgestrel IUDs (Mirena, Liletta, Kyleena, Skyla) and 50,450 reports for the copper IUD (Paragard).

TAKEAWAY:

• Levonorgestrel IUD users showed higher odds of reporting acne (odds ratio [OR], 3.21), alopecia (OR, 5.96), and hirsutism (OR, 15.48; all P < .0001) than copper IUD users.
• The Kyleena 19.5 mg levonorgestrel IUD was associated with the highest odds of acne reports (OR, 3.42), followed by the Mirena 52 mg (OR, 3.40) and Skyla 13.5 mg (OR, 2.30) levonorgestrel IUDs (all P < .0001).
• The Mirena IUD was associated with the highest odds of alopecia and hirsutism reports (OR, 6.62 and 17.43, respectively), followed by the Kyleena (ORs, 2.90 and 8.17, respectively) and Skyla (ORs, 2.69 and 1.48, respectively) IUDs (all P < .0001).
• Reports of acne, alopecia, and hirsutism were not significantly different between the Liletta 52 mg levonorgestrel IUD and the copper IUD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, we identified significant associations between levonorgestrel IUDs and androgenic cutaneous adverse events,” the authors wrote. “Counseling prior to initiation of levonorgestrel IUDs should include information on possible cutaneous AEs including acne, alopecia, and hirsutism to guide contraceptive shared decision making,” they added.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lydia Cassard, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, and was published online November 3 in Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

FAERS database reports could not be verified, and differences in FDA approval dates for IUDs could have influenced reporting rates. Moreover, a lack of data on prior medication use limits the ability to determine if these AEs are a result of changes in androgenic or antiandrogenic medication use. Cutaneous adverse events associated with copper IUDs may have been underreported because of assumptions that a nonhormonal device would not cause these adverse events.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any funding source or conflict of interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Levonorgestrel intrauterine devices (IUDs) are associated with significantly more reports of acne, alopecia, and hirsutism compared with copper IUDs, with some differences between the available levonorgestrel IUDs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) through December 2023 for adverse events associated with levonorgestrel IUDs where IUDs were the only suspected cause, focusing on acne, alopecia, and hirsutism.
• They included 139,348 reports for the levonorgestrel IUDs (Mirena, Liletta, Kyleena, Skyla) and 50,450 reports for the copper IUD (Paragard).

TAKEAWAY:

• Levonorgestrel IUD users showed higher odds of reporting acne (odds ratio [OR], 3.21), alopecia (OR, 5.96), and hirsutism (OR, 15.48; all P < .0001) than copper IUD users.
• The Kyleena 19.5 mg levonorgestrel IUD was associated with the highest odds of acne reports (OR, 3.42), followed by the Mirena 52 mg (OR, 3.40) and Skyla 13.5 mg (OR, 2.30) levonorgestrel IUDs (all P < .0001).
• The Mirena IUD was associated with the highest odds of alopecia and hirsutism reports (OR, 6.62 and 17.43, respectively), followed by the Kyleena (ORs, 2.90 and 8.17, respectively) and Skyla (ORs, 2.69 and 1.48, respectively) IUDs (all P < .0001).
• Reports of acne, alopecia, and hirsutism were not significantly different between the Liletta 52 mg levonorgestrel IUD and the copper IUD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, we identified significant associations between levonorgestrel IUDs and androgenic cutaneous adverse events,” the authors wrote. “Counseling prior to initiation of levonorgestrel IUDs should include information on possible cutaneous AEs including acne, alopecia, and hirsutism to guide contraceptive shared decision making,” they added.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lydia Cassard, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, and was published online November 3 in Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

FAERS database reports could not be verified, and differences in FDA approval dates for IUDs could have influenced reporting rates. Moreover, a lack of data on prior medication use limits the ability to determine if these AEs are a result of changes in androgenic or antiandrogenic medication use. Cutaneous adverse events associated with copper IUDs may have been underreported because of assumptions that a nonhormonal device would not cause these adverse events.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any funding source or conflict of interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Levonorgestrel intrauterine devices (IUDs) are associated with significantly more reports of acne, alopecia, and hirsutism compared with copper IUDs, with some differences between the available levonorgestrel IUDs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) through December 2023 for adverse events associated with levonorgestrel IUDs where IUDs were the only suspected cause, focusing on acne, alopecia, and hirsutism.
• They included 139,348 reports for the levonorgestrel IUDs (Mirena, Liletta, Kyleena, Skyla) and 50,450 reports for the copper IUD (Paragard).

TAKEAWAY:

• Levonorgestrel IUD users showed higher odds of reporting acne (odds ratio [OR], 3.21), alopecia (OR, 5.96), and hirsutism (OR, 15.48; all P < .0001) than copper IUD users.
• The Kyleena 19.5 mg levonorgestrel IUD was associated with the highest odds of acne reports (OR, 3.42), followed by the Mirena 52 mg (OR, 3.40) and Skyla 13.5 mg (OR, 2.30) levonorgestrel IUDs (all P < .0001).
• The Mirena IUD was associated with the highest odds of alopecia and hirsutism reports (OR, 6.62 and 17.43, respectively), followed by the Kyleena (ORs, 2.90 and 8.17, respectively) and Skyla (ORs, 2.69 and 1.48, respectively) IUDs (all P < .0001).
• Reports of acne, alopecia, and hirsutism were not significantly different between the Liletta 52 mg levonorgestrel IUD and the copper IUD.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, we identified significant associations between levonorgestrel IUDs and androgenic cutaneous adverse events,” the authors wrote. “Counseling prior to initiation of levonorgestrel IUDs should include information on possible cutaneous AEs including acne, alopecia, and hirsutism to guide contraceptive shared decision making,” they added.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lydia Cassard, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, and was published online November 3 in Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

FAERS database reports could not be verified, and differences in FDA approval dates for IUDs could have influenced reporting rates. Moreover, a lack of data on prior medication use limits the ability to determine if these AEs are a result of changes in androgenic or antiandrogenic medication use. Cutaneous adverse events associated with copper IUDs may have been underreported because of assumptions that a nonhormonal device would not cause these adverse events.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any funding source or conflict of interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A diagnostic test to predict preeclampsia does not effectively rule in or out this pregnancy complication in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and proteinuria, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“If you have a patient who has proteinuria during pregnancy, I’m not sure we know what to do with this test,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She led the research and presented the work.

The results “are probably a step in the right direction to understanding that we need more biochemical markers for differentiating preeclampsia [in this patient population],” Leanna Wise, MD, of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She comoderated the session where the research was presented. “It exposed that we have a lot of gray areas in which we need to do more research.”

The test is a ratio of two biomarkers that measure spiral artery and placental health: Soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and placental growth factor (PlGF). In the general population, a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≤ 38 effectively rules out the short-term risk for preeclampsia, whereas a ratio ≥ 85 is moderately predictive of preeclampsia. However, it was not known how this test would fare in pregnant women with SLE who are already at a higher risk for the complication.

To answer this question, Clowse and colleagues pulled patient data from an ongoing prospective registry of lupus pregnancies. The analysis included patients with a confirmed SLE diagnosis who had enrolled in the registry prior to 30 weeks’ gestation. All participants had provided a serum sample prior to 16 weeks’ gestation and had singleton pregnancies.

In an extensive chart review, preeclampsia was determined by a roundtable of six experts: Two rheumatologists, two maternal-fetal medicine doctors, and two nephrologists.

The analysis included 79 pregnancies, of which 30% developed preeclampsia. Nearly half (47%) of the participants identified as Black or African American. About 30% had a history of lupus nephritis, and half of these patients had active disease during their pregnancy. About half of the women reported that this was their first pregnancy, and an additional 17% of women reported a prior episode of preeclampsia. Most patients were on aspirin (92%) and hydroxychloroquine (87%), and another 43% were prescribed prednisone and 37% were taking azathioprine.

Researchers assessed whether a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (≤ 38) was associated with the absence of preeclampsia at 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw, as well as during the entire pregnancy. They also tested if a high ratio (≥ 85) was associated with the development of preeclampsia within 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw and through the entire pregnancy.

Across all pregnancies in the cohort, those with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 were unlikely to develop preeclampsia at 4 weeks post draw (negative predictive value [NPV], 98%) and 8 weeks post draw (NPV, 96%). Still, 20% of patients with this low ratio went on to develop preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy.

Similar to the general population, sFlt-1/PlGF ≥ 85 was only moderately predictive of preeclampsia. Over half of all patients with this high ratio developed preeclampsia, but more than 40% did not.

Researchers also stratified patients by urine protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) at the time of their rheumatology visit, defining proteinuria as a UPCR ≥ 300 mg/g.

In patients without proteinuria (n = 63), a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ruled out preeclampsia over the next 8 weeks, but a high sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was not usefully predictive of preeclampsia.

 

Low Ratio to Rule Out Preeclampsia ‘Reassuring’

The high reliability in ruling out preeclampsia in this subset of patients with a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is “reassuring,” Wise said, and suggests that these patients are “relatively safe moving forward,” given regular follow-up.

In the small group of patients with proteinuria (n = 16), 44% ultimately developed preeclampsia. One third of patients with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 developed preeclampsia in 8 weeks, and half experienced preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy. Among the patients with sFlt-1:PlGF ≥ 85, 56% developed preeclampsia during their pregnancy.

“The negative predictive values are not really great, and the positive predictive values are not really very useful,” Clowse said. For a pregnant patient with proteinuria, “I don’t think that a high [ratio] is going to tell us that she definitely has preeclampsia today or tomorrow. I also am not convinced yet that a low [ratio] tells us that she’s out of the woods. So, I think we definitely need more research on what to do with this test in patients with proteinuria.”

Clowse is a consultant and has received research support/grants from GSK and UCB. She also reported consulting for AstraZeneca. Wise is a consultant for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, and GSK.

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

WASHINGTON — A diagnostic test to predict preeclampsia does not effectively rule in or out this pregnancy complication in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and proteinuria, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“If you have a patient who has proteinuria during pregnancy, I’m not sure we know what to do with this test,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She led the research and presented the work.

The results “are probably a step in the right direction to understanding that we need more biochemical markers for differentiating preeclampsia [in this patient population],” Leanna Wise, MD, of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She comoderated the session where the research was presented. “It exposed that we have a lot of gray areas in which we need to do more research.”

The test is a ratio of two biomarkers that measure spiral artery and placental health: Soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and placental growth factor (PlGF). In the general population, a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≤ 38 effectively rules out the short-term risk for preeclampsia, whereas a ratio ≥ 85 is moderately predictive of preeclampsia. However, it was not known how this test would fare in pregnant women with SLE who are already at a higher risk for the complication.

To answer this question, Clowse and colleagues pulled patient data from an ongoing prospective registry of lupus pregnancies. The analysis included patients with a confirmed SLE diagnosis who had enrolled in the registry prior to 30 weeks’ gestation. All participants had provided a serum sample prior to 16 weeks’ gestation and had singleton pregnancies.

In an extensive chart review, preeclampsia was determined by a roundtable of six experts: Two rheumatologists, two maternal-fetal medicine doctors, and two nephrologists.

The analysis included 79 pregnancies, of which 30% developed preeclampsia. Nearly half (47%) of the participants identified as Black or African American. About 30% had a history of lupus nephritis, and half of these patients had active disease during their pregnancy. About half of the women reported that this was their first pregnancy, and an additional 17% of women reported a prior episode of preeclampsia. Most patients were on aspirin (92%) and hydroxychloroquine (87%), and another 43% were prescribed prednisone and 37% were taking azathioprine.

Researchers assessed whether a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (≤ 38) was associated with the absence of preeclampsia at 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw, as well as during the entire pregnancy. They also tested if a high ratio (≥ 85) was associated with the development of preeclampsia within 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw and through the entire pregnancy.

Across all pregnancies in the cohort, those with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 were unlikely to develop preeclampsia at 4 weeks post draw (negative predictive value [NPV], 98%) and 8 weeks post draw (NPV, 96%). Still, 20% of patients with this low ratio went on to develop preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy.

Similar to the general population, sFlt-1/PlGF ≥ 85 was only moderately predictive of preeclampsia. Over half of all patients with this high ratio developed preeclampsia, but more than 40% did not.

Researchers also stratified patients by urine protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) at the time of their rheumatology visit, defining proteinuria as a UPCR ≥ 300 mg/g.

In patients without proteinuria (n = 63), a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ruled out preeclampsia over the next 8 weeks, but a high sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was not usefully predictive of preeclampsia.

 

Low Ratio to Rule Out Preeclampsia ‘Reassuring’

The high reliability in ruling out preeclampsia in this subset of patients with a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is “reassuring,” Wise said, and suggests that these patients are “relatively safe moving forward,” given regular follow-up.

In the small group of patients with proteinuria (n = 16), 44% ultimately developed preeclampsia. One third of patients with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 developed preeclampsia in 8 weeks, and half experienced preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy. Among the patients with sFlt-1:PlGF ≥ 85, 56% developed preeclampsia during their pregnancy.

“The negative predictive values are not really great, and the positive predictive values are not really very useful,” Clowse said. For a pregnant patient with proteinuria, “I don’t think that a high [ratio] is going to tell us that she definitely has preeclampsia today or tomorrow. I also am not convinced yet that a low [ratio] tells us that she’s out of the woods. So, I think we definitely need more research on what to do with this test in patients with proteinuria.”

Clowse is a consultant and has received research support/grants from GSK and UCB. She also reported consulting for AstraZeneca. Wise is a consultant for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, and GSK.

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

WASHINGTON — A diagnostic test to predict preeclampsia does not effectively rule in or out this pregnancy complication in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and proteinuria, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“If you have a patient who has proteinuria during pregnancy, I’m not sure we know what to do with this test,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She led the research and presented the work.

The results “are probably a step in the right direction to understanding that we need more biochemical markers for differentiating preeclampsia [in this patient population],” Leanna Wise, MD, of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She comoderated the session where the research was presented. “It exposed that we have a lot of gray areas in which we need to do more research.”

The test is a ratio of two biomarkers that measure spiral artery and placental health: Soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and placental growth factor (PlGF). In the general population, a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≤ 38 effectively rules out the short-term risk for preeclampsia, whereas a ratio ≥ 85 is moderately predictive of preeclampsia. However, it was not known how this test would fare in pregnant women with SLE who are already at a higher risk for the complication.

To answer this question, Clowse and colleagues pulled patient data from an ongoing prospective registry of lupus pregnancies. The analysis included patients with a confirmed SLE diagnosis who had enrolled in the registry prior to 30 weeks’ gestation. All participants had provided a serum sample prior to 16 weeks’ gestation and had singleton pregnancies.

In an extensive chart review, preeclampsia was determined by a roundtable of six experts: Two rheumatologists, two maternal-fetal medicine doctors, and two nephrologists.

The analysis included 79 pregnancies, of which 30% developed preeclampsia. Nearly half (47%) of the participants identified as Black or African American. About 30% had a history of lupus nephritis, and half of these patients had active disease during their pregnancy. About half of the women reported that this was their first pregnancy, and an additional 17% of women reported a prior episode of preeclampsia. Most patients were on aspirin (92%) and hydroxychloroquine (87%), and another 43% were prescribed prednisone and 37% were taking azathioprine.

Researchers assessed whether a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (≤ 38) was associated with the absence of preeclampsia at 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw, as well as during the entire pregnancy. They also tested if a high ratio (≥ 85) was associated with the development of preeclampsia within 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw and through the entire pregnancy.

Across all pregnancies in the cohort, those with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 were unlikely to develop preeclampsia at 4 weeks post draw (negative predictive value [NPV], 98%) and 8 weeks post draw (NPV, 96%). Still, 20% of patients with this low ratio went on to develop preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy.

Similar to the general population, sFlt-1/PlGF ≥ 85 was only moderately predictive of preeclampsia. Over half of all patients with this high ratio developed preeclampsia, but more than 40% did not.

Researchers also stratified patients by urine protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) at the time of their rheumatology visit, defining proteinuria as a UPCR ≥ 300 mg/g.

In patients without proteinuria (n = 63), a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ruled out preeclampsia over the next 8 weeks, but a high sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was not usefully predictive of preeclampsia.

 

Low Ratio to Rule Out Preeclampsia ‘Reassuring’

The high reliability in ruling out preeclampsia in this subset of patients with a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is “reassuring,” Wise said, and suggests that these patients are “relatively safe moving forward,” given regular follow-up.

In the small group of patients with proteinuria (n = 16), 44% ultimately developed preeclampsia. One third of patients with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 developed preeclampsia in 8 weeks, and half experienced preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy. Among the patients with sFlt-1:PlGF ≥ 85, 56% developed preeclampsia during their pregnancy.

“The negative predictive values are not really great, and the positive predictive values are not really very useful,” Clowse said. For a pregnant patient with proteinuria, “I don’t think that a high [ratio] is going to tell us that she definitely has preeclampsia today or tomorrow. I also am not convinced yet that a low [ratio] tells us that she’s out of the woods. So, I think we definitely need more research on what to do with this test in patients with proteinuria.”

Clowse is a consultant and has received research support/grants from GSK and UCB. She also reported consulting for AstraZeneca. Wise is a consultant for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, and GSK.

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