User login
More research needed on how fetal exposure affects later development
The number of genes in humans seems inadequate to account for the diversity seen in people. While maternal and paternal factors do play a role in the development of offspring, increased attention is being paid to the forces that express these genes and the impact they have on the health of a person, including development of psychiatric conditions, according to Dolores Malaspina, MD.
Epigenetics, or changes that occur in a fetal phenotype that do not involve changes to the genotype, involve factors such as DNA methylation to control gene expression, histone modification or the wrapping of genes, or the silencing and activation of certain genes with noncoding RNA-associated factors, said Dr. Malaspina of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
When this occurs during pregnancy, “the fetus does not simply develop from a genetic blueprint of the genes from its father and mother. Instead, signals are received throughout the pregnancy as to the health of the mother and signals about the environment,” she said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.
There is an evolutionary advantage to this so-called survival phenotype. “If, during the pregnancy, there’s a deficit of available nutrition, that may be a signal to the fetus that food will be scarce. In the setting of food scarcity, certain physiological adaptations during development can make the fetus more likely to survive to adulthood,” Dr. Malaspina said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education. But a fetus programmed to adapt to scarcity of food may also develop cardiovascular disease, metabolic disease, or mortality later in life if the prediction of scarce nutrition proved incorrect.
This approach to thinking about the developmental origins of health and disease, which examines how prenatal and perinatal exposure to environmental factors affect disease in adulthood, has also found a link between some exposures and psychiatric disorders. The most famous example, the Dutch Hunger Winter Families Study, found an increased risk of schizophrenia among children born during the height of the famine (Int J Epidemiol. 2007 Dec;36[6]:1196-204). During the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 (the Six-Day War), which took place in June, the fetuses of mothers who were pregnant during that month had a higher risk of schizophrenia if the fetus was in the second month (relative risk, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.7) or third month (RR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.2) of fetal life during June 1967, Dr. Malaspina and associates wrote (BMC Psychiatry. 2008 Aug 21;8:71).
“The key aspect is the ascertainment of individuals during a circumscribed period, the assessment and then the longitudinal follow-up,” she said. “Obviously, these are not easy studies to do, but enough of them have been done such that for the last decade at least, the general population should be aware of the developmental origins of health and disease.”
Maternal depression is another psychiatric condition that can serve as a prenatal exposure to adversity. A recent review found that children of women with untreated depression were 56% more likely to be born preterm and 96% more likely to have a low birth weight (Pediatr Res. 2019 Jan;85[2]:134-45). “Preterm birth and early birth along with low birth weight, these have ramifying effects throughout life, not only on neonatal and infant mortality, but on developmental disorders and lifetime morbidity,” she said. “These effects of maternal depression withstand all sorts of accounting for other correlated exposures, including maternal age and her medical complications or substance use.”
“The modulation of mood and affect can affect temperament and affect mental health. Studies exist linking maternal depression to autism, attention-deficit disorder, developmental delay, behavioral problems, sleep problems, externalizing behavior and depression, showing a very large effect of maternal depression on offspring well-being.”
To complicate matters, at least 15% of women will experience major depression during pregnancy, but of these, major depression is not being addressed in about half. Nonpharmacologic interventions can include cognitive-behavioral therapy and relaxation practices, but medication should be considered as well. “There’s an ongoing debate about whether antidepressant medications are harmful for the offspring,” she said. However, reviews conducted by Dr. Malaspina’s group have found low evidence of serious harm.
“My summary would be the depression itself holds much more evidence for disrupting offspring health and development than medications,” Dr. Malaspina said. “Most studies find no adverse birth effects when they properly controlled accounting for maternal age and the other conditions and other medications.”
Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Malaspina reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
The number of genes in humans seems inadequate to account for the diversity seen in people. While maternal and paternal factors do play a role in the development of offspring, increased attention is being paid to the forces that express these genes and the impact they have on the health of a person, including development of psychiatric conditions, according to Dolores Malaspina, MD.
Epigenetics, or changes that occur in a fetal phenotype that do not involve changes to the genotype, involve factors such as DNA methylation to control gene expression, histone modification or the wrapping of genes, or the silencing and activation of certain genes with noncoding RNA-associated factors, said Dr. Malaspina of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
When this occurs during pregnancy, “the fetus does not simply develop from a genetic blueprint of the genes from its father and mother. Instead, signals are received throughout the pregnancy as to the health of the mother and signals about the environment,” she said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.
There is an evolutionary advantage to this so-called survival phenotype. “If, during the pregnancy, there’s a deficit of available nutrition, that may be a signal to the fetus that food will be scarce. In the setting of food scarcity, certain physiological adaptations during development can make the fetus more likely to survive to adulthood,” Dr. Malaspina said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education. But a fetus programmed to adapt to scarcity of food may also develop cardiovascular disease, metabolic disease, or mortality later in life if the prediction of scarce nutrition proved incorrect.
This approach to thinking about the developmental origins of health and disease, which examines how prenatal and perinatal exposure to environmental factors affect disease in adulthood, has also found a link between some exposures and psychiatric disorders. The most famous example, the Dutch Hunger Winter Families Study, found an increased risk of schizophrenia among children born during the height of the famine (Int J Epidemiol. 2007 Dec;36[6]:1196-204). During the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 (the Six-Day War), which took place in June, the fetuses of mothers who were pregnant during that month had a higher risk of schizophrenia if the fetus was in the second month (relative risk, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.7) or third month (RR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.2) of fetal life during June 1967, Dr. Malaspina and associates wrote (BMC Psychiatry. 2008 Aug 21;8:71).
“The key aspect is the ascertainment of individuals during a circumscribed period, the assessment and then the longitudinal follow-up,” she said. “Obviously, these are not easy studies to do, but enough of them have been done such that for the last decade at least, the general population should be aware of the developmental origins of health and disease.”
Maternal depression is another psychiatric condition that can serve as a prenatal exposure to adversity. A recent review found that children of women with untreated depression were 56% more likely to be born preterm and 96% more likely to have a low birth weight (Pediatr Res. 2019 Jan;85[2]:134-45). “Preterm birth and early birth along with low birth weight, these have ramifying effects throughout life, not only on neonatal and infant mortality, but on developmental disorders and lifetime morbidity,” she said. “These effects of maternal depression withstand all sorts of accounting for other correlated exposures, including maternal age and her medical complications or substance use.”
“The modulation of mood and affect can affect temperament and affect mental health. Studies exist linking maternal depression to autism, attention-deficit disorder, developmental delay, behavioral problems, sleep problems, externalizing behavior and depression, showing a very large effect of maternal depression on offspring well-being.”
To complicate matters, at least 15% of women will experience major depression during pregnancy, but of these, major depression is not being addressed in about half. Nonpharmacologic interventions can include cognitive-behavioral therapy and relaxation practices, but medication should be considered as well. “There’s an ongoing debate about whether antidepressant medications are harmful for the offspring,” she said. However, reviews conducted by Dr. Malaspina’s group have found low evidence of serious harm.
“My summary would be the depression itself holds much more evidence for disrupting offspring health and development than medications,” Dr. Malaspina said. “Most studies find no adverse birth effects when they properly controlled accounting for maternal age and the other conditions and other medications.”
Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Malaspina reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
The number of genes in humans seems inadequate to account for the diversity seen in people. While maternal and paternal factors do play a role in the development of offspring, increased attention is being paid to the forces that express these genes and the impact they have on the health of a person, including development of psychiatric conditions, according to Dolores Malaspina, MD.
Epigenetics, or changes that occur in a fetal phenotype that do not involve changes to the genotype, involve factors such as DNA methylation to control gene expression, histone modification or the wrapping of genes, or the silencing and activation of certain genes with noncoding RNA-associated factors, said Dr. Malaspina of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
When this occurs during pregnancy, “the fetus does not simply develop from a genetic blueprint of the genes from its father and mother. Instead, signals are received throughout the pregnancy as to the health of the mother and signals about the environment,” she said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.
There is an evolutionary advantage to this so-called survival phenotype. “If, during the pregnancy, there’s a deficit of available nutrition, that may be a signal to the fetus that food will be scarce. In the setting of food scarcity, certain physiological adaptations during development can make the fetus more likely to survive to adulthood,” Dr. Malaspina said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education. But a fetus programmed to adapt to scarcity of food may also develop cardiovascular disease, metabolic disease, or mortality later in life if the prediction of scarce nutrition proved incorrect.
This approach to thinking about the developmental origins of health and disease, which examines how prenatal and perinatal exposure to environmental factors affect disease in adulthood, has also found a link between some exposures and psychiatric disorders. The most famous example, the Dutch Hunger Winter Families Study, found an increased risk of schizophrenia among children born during the height of the famine (Int J Epidemiol. 2007 Dec;36[6]:1196-204). During the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 (the Six-Day War), which took place in June, the fetuses of mothers who were pregnant during that month had a higher risk of schizophrenia if the fetus was in the second month (relative risk, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.7) or third month (RR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.2) of fetal life during June 1967, Dr. Malaspina and associates wrote (BMC Psychiatry. 2008 Aug 21;8:71).
“The key aspect is the ascertainment of individuals during a circumscribed period, the assessment and then the longitudinal follow-up,” she said. “Obviously, these are not easy studies to do, but enough of them have been done such that for the last decade at least, the general population should be aware of the developmental origins of health and disease.”
Maternal depression is another psychiatric condition that can serve as a prenatal exposure to adversity. A recent review found that children of women with untreated depression were 56% more likely to be born preterm and 96% more likely to have a low birth weight (Pediatr Res. 2019 Jan;85[2]:134-45). “Preterm birth and early birth along with low birth weight, these have ramifying effects throughout life, not only on neonatal and infant mortality, but on developmental disorders and lifetime morbidity,” she said. “These effects of maternal depression withstand all sorts of accounting for other correlated exposures, including maternal age and her medical complications or substance use.”
“The modulation of mood and affect can affect temperament and affect mental health. Studies exist linking maternal depression to autism, attention-deficit disorder, developmental delay, behavioral problems, sleep problems, externalizing behavior and depression, showing a very large effect of maternal depression on offspring well-being.”
To complicate matters, at least 15% of women will experience major depression during pregnancy, but of these, major depression is not being addressed in about half. Nonpharmacologic interventions can include cognitive-behavioral therapy and relaxation practices, but medication should be considered as well. “There’s an ongoing debate about whether antidepressant medications are harmful for the offspring,” she said. However, reviews conducted by Dr. Malaspina’s group have found low evidence of serious harm.
“My summary would be the depression itself holds much more evidence for disrupting offspring health and development than medications,” Dr. Malaspina said. “Most studies find no adverse birth effects when they properly controlled accounting for maternal age and the other conditions and other medications.”
Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Malaspina reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM FOCUS ON NEUROPSYCHIATRY 2020
SARS-CoV-2 appears unlikely to pass through breast milk
Breast milk is an unlikely source of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mothers to infants, according to data from case reports and breast milk samples from 18 women.
“To date, SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated from breast milk, and there are no documented cases of transmission of infectious virus to the infant through breast milk,” but the potential for transmission remains a concern among women who want to breastfeed, wrote Christina Chambers, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.
In a research letter published in JAMA, the investigators identified 18 women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections (all but 1 of the women had symptomatic COVID-19 disease) and infants aged 0-19 months between March 27 and May 6, 2020. The average age of the mothers was 34 years, and 78% were non-Hispanic White. The women provided 1-12 samples of breast milk for a total of 64 samples collected before and after positive COVID-19 tests.
One sample yielded detectable RNA from SARS-CoV-2 and was collected on the day of the woman’s symptom onset. However, one sample taken 2 days prior to symptom onset and two samples collected 12 and 41 days later tested negative for viral RNA, the researchers said. In addition, no replication-competent virus was identified in the positive sample or any of the other samples.
The researchers spiked two stored milk samples collected prior to the pandemic with replication-competent SARS-CoV-2. Virus was not detected by culture in the samples after Holder pasteurization, but was detected by culture in nonpasteurized aliquots of the same samples.
“These data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 RNA does not represent replication-competent virus and that breast milk may not be a source of infection for the infant,” Dr. Chambers and associates said.
The results were limited by several factors including the small sample size and potential for selection bias, as well as the use of self-reports of positive tests and self-collection of breast milk, the researchers noted. However, the findings are reassuring in light of the known benefits of breastfeeding and the use of milk banks.
“This research is important because the pandemic is ongoing and has far-reaching consequences: as the authors indicate, the potential for viral transmission through breast milk remains a critical question for women infected with SARS-CoV-2 who wish to breastfeed,” Janet R. Hardy, PhD, MPH, MSc, a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology, said in an interview.
“This virus has everyone on a rapid learning track, and all information that helps build evidence to support women’s decision-making in the care of their children is valuable,” she said. “These findings suggest that breast milk may not be a source of SARS-CoV-2 infection for the infant. They provide some reassurance given the recognized benefits of breastfeeding and human milk.”
However, “This study is very specific to breast milk,” she emphasized. “In advising women infected with SARS-CoV-2, clinicians may want to include a discussion of protection methods to prevent maternal transmission of the virus through respiratory droplets.”
Although the data are preliminary, “the investigators established and validated an RT-PCR [reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction] assay and developed tissue culture methods for replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 in breast milk, both valuable tools for further studies. Next steps will include controlled studies of greater sample size with independent verification of RT-PCR positivity,” said Dr. Hardy, a consultant to Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, Conn.
The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Institute of Mental Health. Medela Corporation provided milk sample collection materials. The Family Larsson-Rosenquist Foundation provided an unrestricted COVID19 emergency gift fund. The Mothers’ Milk Bank at Austin paid for shipping costs.
SOURCE: Chambers C et al. JAMA. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.15580.
Breast milk is an unlikely source of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mothers to infants, according to data from case reports and breast milk samples from 18 women.
“To date, SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated from breast milk, and there are no documented cases of transmission of infectious virus to the infant through breast milk,” but the potential for transmission remains a concern among women who want to breastfeed, wrote Christina Chambers, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.
In a research letter published in JAMA, the investigators identified 18 women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections (all but 1 of the women had symptomatic COVID-19 disease) and infants aged 0-19 months between March 27 and May 6, 2020. The average age of the mothers was 34 years, and 78% were non-Hispanic White. The women provided 1-12 samples of breast milk for a total of 64 samples collected before and after positive COVID-19 tests.
One sample yielded detectable RNA from SARS-CoV-2 and was collected on the day of the woman’s symptom onset. However, one sample taken 2 days prior to symptom onset and two samples collected 12 and 41 days later tested negative for viral RNA, the researchers said. In addition, no replication-competent virus was identified in the positive sample or any of the other samples.
The researchers spiked two stored milk samples collected prior to the pandemic with replication-competent SARS-CoV-2. Virus was not detected by culture in the samples after Holder pasteurization, but was detected by culture in nonpasteurized aliquots of the same samples.
“These data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 RNA does not represent replication-competent virus and that breast milk may not be a source of infection for the infant,” Dr. Chambers and associates said.
The results were limited by several factors including the small sample size and potential for selection bias, as well as the use of self-reports of positive tests and self-collection of breast milk, the researchers noted. However, the findings are reassuring in light of the known benefits of breastfeeding and the use of milk banks.
“This research is important because the pandemic is ongoing and has far-reaching consequences: as the authors indicate, the potential for viral transmission through breast milk remains a critical question for women infected with SARS-CoV-2 who wish to breastfeed,” Janet R. Hardy, PhD, MPH, MSc, a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology, said in an interview.
“This virus has everyone on a rapid learning track, and all information that helps build evidence to support women’s decision-making in the care of their children is valuable,” she said. “These findings suggest that breast milk may not be a source of SARS-CoV-2 infection for the infant. They provide some reassurance given the recognized benefits of breastfeeding and human milk.”
However, “This study is very specific to breast milk,” she emphasized. “In advising women infected with SARS-CoV-2, clinicians may want to include a discussion of protection methods to prevent maternal transmission of the virus through respiratory droplets.”
Although the data are preliminary, “the investigators established and validated an RT-PCR [reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction] assay and developed tissue culture methods for replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 in breast milk, both valuable tools for further studies. Next steps will include controlled studies of greater sample size with independent verification of RT-PCR positivity,” said Dr. Hardy, a consultant to Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, Conn.
The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Institute of Mental Health. Medela Corporation provided milk sample collection materials. The Family Larsson-Rosenquist Foundation provided an unrestricted COVID19 emergency gift fund. The Mothers’ Milk Bank at Austin paid for shipping costs.
SOURCE: Chambers C et al. JAMA. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.15580.
Breast milk is an unlikely source of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mothers to infants, according to data from case reports and breast milk samples from 18 women.
“To date, SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated from breast milk, and there are no documented cases of transmission of infectious virus to the infant through breast milk,” but the potential for transmission remains a concern among women who want to breastfeed, wrote Christina Chambers, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.
In a research letter published in JAMA, the investigators identified 18 women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections (all but 1 of the women had symptomatic COVID-19 disease) and infants aged 0-19 months between March 27 and May 6, 2020. The average age of the mothers was 34 years, and 78% were non-Hispanic White. The women provided 1-12 samples of breast milk for a total of 64 samples collected before and after positive COVID-19 tests.
One sample yielded detectable RNA from SARS-CoV-2 and was collected on the day of the woman’s symptom onset. However, one sample taken 2 days prior to symptom onset and two samples collected 12 and 41 days later tested negative for viral RNA, the researchers said. In addition, no replication-competent virus was identified in the positive sample or any of the other samples.
The researchers spiked two stored milk samples collected prior to the pandemic with replication-competent SARS-CoV-2. Virus was not detected by culture in the samples after Holder pasteurization, but was detected by culture in nonpasteurized aliquots of the same samples.
“These data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 RNA does not represent replication-competent virus and that breast milk may not be a source of infection for the infant,” Dr. Chambers and associates said.
The results were limited by several factors including the small sample size and potential for selection bias, as well as the use of self-reports of positive tests and self-collection of breast milk, the researchers noted. However, the findings are reassuring in light of the known benefits of breastfeeding and the use of milk banks.
“This research is important because the pandemic is ongoing and has far-reaching consequences: as the authors indicate, the potential for viral transmission through breast milk remains a critical question for women infected with SARS-CoV-2 who wish to breastfeed,” Janet R. Hardy, PhD, MPH, MSc, a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology, said in an interview.
“This virus has everyone on a rapid learning track, and all information that helps build evidence to support women’s decision-making in the care of their children is valuable,” she said. “These findings suggest that breast milk may not be a source of SARS-CoV-2 infection for the infant. They provide some reassurance given the recognized benefits of breastfeeding and human milk.”
However, “This study is very specific to breast milk,” she emphasized. “In advising women infected with SARS-CoV-2, clinicians may want to include a discussion of protection methods to prevent maternal transmission of the virus through respiratory droplets.”
Although the data are preliminary, “the investigators established and validated an RT-PCR [reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction] assay and developed tissue culture methods for replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 in breast milk, both valuable tools for further studies. Next steps will include controlled studies of greater sample size with independent verification of RT-PCR positivity,” said Dr. Hardy, a consultant to Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, Conn.
The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Institute of Mental Health. Medela Corporation provided milk sample collection materials. The Family Larsson-Rosenquist Foundation provided an unrestricted COVID19 emergency gift fund. The Mothers’ Milk Bank at Austin paid for shipping costs.
SOURCE: Chambers C et al. JAMA. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.15580.
FROM JAMA
Reducing maternal mortality with prenatal care
As in its typical fashion, the question sprang out from a young Black patient after some meandering conversation during preconception counseling: “How do y’all prevent Black maternal mortality?” At the beginning of my career, I used to think preparing a patient for pregnancy involved recommending prenatal vitamins and rubella immunity screening. Now, having worked in a society with substantial racial health disparities for 14 years, there is greater awareness that pregnancy can be a matter of life or death that disproportionately affects people of color.
For Black patients in the United States, the maternal mortality ratio is almost four times higher than the ratio for White patients, 42 deaths versus 13 deaths per 100,000 live births, respectively.1 Georgia has the highest maternal mortality ratio in the United States at 67 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. However, if you are a Black woman in Georgia, your chance of dying of pregnancy-related causes is 2.7 times that of a non-Hispanic White woman living in Georgia.2
Black patients often are not taken seriously, even when they are wealthy, have attained high levels of education, or are famous. Serena Williams, a Black woman and one of the most talented tennis players of all time, was ignored when complaining that she felt a blood clot had returned in her lungs post partum. As a recognition of this crisis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a new campaign to improve recognition of the warning signs of problems in pregnancy called the HEAR HER campaign. This issue is a pervasive problem in our lives that runs across the spectrum of Black experience. I have had Black friends, patients, and colleagues who have been ignored when complaining about labor pain, workplace discrimination, and even when trying to advocate for their patients. We need to uplift Black voices so they can be heard and support the initiatives and interventions they are asking for.
We practice standardized responses to emergencies and to health conditions. We use drills to practice our responses to life-threatening emergencies such as STAT cesarean delivery, shoulder dystocia, obstetrical hemorrhage, or treatment of preeclampsia and eclampsia. The Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health has organized evidence-driven protocols called AIM bundles to reduce preventable maternal morbidity and mortality when implemented. Standardization is an important component of equitable treatment and reduction of disparities. The concept has been used across industries to reduce error and bias. The Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health bundles even include a section on Reduction of Peripartum and Ethnic Disparities.
We admit that bias exists and that we need training to recognize and eliminate it. According to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America about racial bias in pain assessment more than 20% of White residents and medical students surveyed believed that Black people had less sensitive nerve endings than Whites.3 Studies show that this stereotype leads to inappropriate pain management in Black patients, a chief concern when considering how patients are treated on labor and delivery or after surgery.4 Additionally, unconscious bias can be addressed by hiring a diverse workforce at all levels. Familiarity with a diverse group can help us learn from one another in our day-to-day lives.
We need to offer the same high-quality preconception counseling to all of our patients. A patient’s perceived race or ethnicity is a poor indicator of their actual health needs. The amount of melanin in our skin is highly variable but our genetics are remarkably similar, therefore our health concerns are similar. All patients deserve a focus on prevention. Folic acid supplements in the form of prenatal vitamins should be recommended. Routine vaccinations and rubella immunity checks should be offered. Basic carrier screening for diseases of hemoglobin (which includes sickle cell trait), fragile X, spinomuscular atrophy, and cystic fibrosis should be offered. Finally, an emphasis on safety, mental health, and daily low-level exercise (i.e., walking) should be promoted to help prevent illness and injury in this age group. The leading causes of death for people of reproductive age are accidents, suicide, homicide, and heart disease – all preventable.
We treat the social determinants of health, not just the patient in front of us. When “race” is a risk factor for disease, it’s usually racism that’s the problem. As stated earlier, how much melanin is in our skin has little to do with our genetics – if we removed our skin, we’d have similar life expectancies and die of similar things. However, it has everything to do with how we navigate our society and access health care. The stress associated with being Black in America is the likely cause of preterm birth rates – leading to infant illness and death – and maternal mortality being higher in Black patients. This is referred to as “weathering” – the cumulative effects of stress as we age. It explains why Black women are more likely to die in pregnancy despite higher levels of education and increasing age – factors that are protective for other groups. Improving access to quality education, reforming the criminal justice system, affordable housing and child care, living wages, family planning, and universal basic health care exemplify the intersectionality of some of our greatest societal challenges. Addressing these root causes will reduce weathering and ultimately, save Black lives.
We strive to train more “underrepresented minorities” in medicine. According to the American Association of Medical Colleges, only 7.3% of medical students in 2019-2020 identified as Black or African American. This is way below their representation of 13% of the U.S. population. I’m proud that my division and department as a whole have hired and promoted diverse faculty with 30% of my generalist ob.gyn. colleagues being people of color. This shows that we have the input of diverse experiences as well as recognize the special concerns of patients of color. Underrepresented students interested in the health professions need us to do more to get their “foot in the door.” They are less likely to have connections to the field of medicine (family members, mentors), have access to prep courses or advisors, or have the finances to support the expensive application process. Reach out to your alma maters and ask how you can help mentor students at a young age and continue through adulthood, support scholarships, support unpaid internship recipients, and promote interconnectedness throughout this community.
I hope I answered my patient’s question in that moment, but I know what needs to be done is bigger that taking care of one patient. It will require small progress, by us, every single day. Until these interventions and others reshape our society, I’ll still have Black patients who say: “Don’t let me die, okay?” with a look right into my soul and a tight grip on my hand. And I’ll feel the immense weight of that trust, and squeeze the hand back.
Dr. Collins (she/her/hers) is assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology, generalist division, at Emory University, Atlanta. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Collins at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. CDC Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm.
2. Maternal Mortality Fact Sheet, 2012-2015. https://dph.georgia.gov/maternal-mortality.
3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Apr 19;113(16):4296-301.
4. Pain Med. 2012 Feb;13(2):150-74.
As in its typical fashion, the question sprang out from a young Black patient after some meandering conversation during preconception counseling: “How do y’all prevent Black maternal mortality?” At the beginning of my career, I used to think preparing a patient for pregnancy involved recommending prenatal vitamins and rubella immunity screening. Now, having worked in a society with substantial racial health disparities for 14 years, there is greater awareness that pregnancy can be a matter of life or death that disproportionately affects people of color.
For Black patients in the United States, the maternal mortality ratio is almost four times higher than the ratio for White patients, 42 deaths versus 13 deaths per 100,000 live births, respectively.1 Georgia has the highest maternal mortality ratio in the United States at 67 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. However, if you are a Black woman in Georgia, your chance of dying of pregnancy-related causes is 2.7 times that of a non-Hispanic White woman living in Georgia.2
Black patients often are not taken seriously, even when they are wealthy, have attained high levels of education, or are famous. Serena Williams, a Black woman and one of the most talented tennis players of all time, was ignored when complaining that she felt a blood clot had returned in her lungs post partum. As a recognition of this crisis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a new campaign to improve recognition of the warning signs of problems in pregnancy called the HEAR HER campaign. This issue is a pervasive problem in our lives that runs across the spectrum of Black experience. I have had Black friends, patients, and colleagues who have been ignored when complaining about labor pain, workplace discrimination, and even when trying to advocate for their patients. We need to uplift Black voices so they can be heard and support the initiatives and interventions they are asking for.
We practice standardized responses to emergencies and to health conditions. We use drills to practice our responses to life-threatening emergencies such as STAT cesarean delivery, shoulder dystocia, obstetrical hemorrhage, or treatment of preeclampsia and eclampsia. The Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health has organized evidence-driven protocols called AIM bundles to reduce preventable maternal morbidity and mortality when implemented. Standardization is an important component of equitable treatment and reduction of disparities. The concept has been used across industries to reduce error and bias. The Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health bundles even include a section on Reduction of Peripartum and Ethnic Disparities.
We admit that bias exists and that we need training to recognize and eliminate it. According to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America about racial bias in pain assessment more than 20% of White residents and medical students surveyed believed that Black people had less sensitive nerve endings than Whites.3 Studies show that this stereotype leads to inappropriate pain management in Black patients, a chief concern when considering how patients are treated on labor and delivery or after surgery.4 Additionally, unconscious bias can be addressed by hiring a diverse workforce at all levels. Familiarity with a diverse group can help us learn from one another in our day-to-day lives.
We need to offer the same high-quality preconception counseling to all of our patients. A patient’s perceived race or ethnicity is a poor indicator of their actual health needs. The amount of melanin in our skin is highly variable but our genetics are remarkably similar, therefore our health concerns are similar. All patients deserve a focus on prevention. Folic acid supplements in the form of prenatal vitamins should be recommended. Routine vaccinations and rubella immunity checks should be offered. Basic carrier screening for diseases of hemoglobin (which includes sickle cell trait), fragile X, spinomuscular atrophy, and cystic fibrosis should be offered. Finally, an emphasis on safety, mental health, and daily low-level exercise (i.e., walking) should be promoted to help prevent illness and injury in this age group. The leading causes of death for people of reproductive age are accidents, suicide, homicide, and heart disease – all preventable.
We treat the social determinants of health, not just the patient in front of us. When “race” is a risk factor for disease, it’s usually racism that’s the problem. As stated earlier, how much melanin is in our skin has little to do with our genetics – if we removed our skin, we’d have similar life expectancies and die of similar things. However, it has everything to do with how we navigate our society and access health care. The stress associated with being Black in America is the likely cause of preterm birth rates – leading to infant illness and death – and maternal mortality being higher in Black patients. This is referred to as “weathering” – the cumulative effects of stress as we age. It explains why Black women are more likely to die in pregnancy despite higher levels of education and increasing age – factors that are protective for other groups. Improving access to quality education, reforming the criminal justice system, affordable housing and child care, living wages, family planning, and universal basic health care exemplify the intersectionality of some of our greatest societal challenges. Addressing these root causes will reduce weathering and ultimately, save Black lives.
We strive to train more “underrepresented minorities” in medicine. According to the American Association of Medical Colleges, only 7.3% of medical students in 2019-2020 identified as Black or African American. This is way below their representation of 13% of the U.S. population. I’m proud that my division and department as a whole have hired and promoted diverse faculty with 30% of my generalist ob.gyn. colleagues being people of color. This shows that we have the input of diverse experiences as well as recognize the special concerns of patients of color. Underrepresented students interested in the health professions need us to do more to get their “foot in the door.” They are less likely to have connections to the field of medicine (family members, mentors), have access to prep courses or advisors, or have the finances to support the expensive application process. Reach out to your alma maters and ask how you can help mentor students at a young age and continue through adulthood, support scholarships, support unpaid internship recipients, and promote interconnectedness throughout this community.
I hope I answered my patient’s question in that moment, but I know what needs to be done is bigger that taking care of one patient. It will require small progress, by us, every single day. Until these interventions and others reshape our society, I’ll still have Black patients who say: “Don’t let me die, okay?” with a look right into my soul and a tight grip on my hand. And I’ll feel the immense weight of that trust, and squeeze the hand back.
Dr. Collins (she/her/hers) is assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology, generalist division, at Emory University, Atlanta. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Collins at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. CDC Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm.
2. Maternal Mortality Fact Sheet, 2012-2015. https://dph.georgia.gov/maternal-mortality.
3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Apr 19;113(16):4296-301.
4. Pain Med. 2012 Feb;13(2):150-74.
As in its typical fashion, the question sprang out from a young Black patient after some meandering conversation during preconception counseling: “How do y’all prevent Black maternal mortality?” At the beginning of my career, I used to think preparing a patient for pregnancy involved recommending prenatal vitamins and rubella immunity screening. Now, having worked in a society with substantial racial health disparities for 14 years, there is greater awareness that pregnancy can be a matter of life or death that disproportionately affects people of color.
For Black patients in the United States, the maternal mortality ratio is almost four times higher than the ratio for White patients, 42 deaths versus 13 deaths per 100,000 live births, respectively.1 Georgia has the highest maternal mortality ratio in the United States at 67 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. However, if you are a Black woman in Georgia, your chance of dying of pregnancy-related causes is 2.7 times that of a non-Hispanic White woman living in Georgia.2
Black patients often are not taken seriously, even when they are wealthy, have attained high levels of education, or are famous. Serena Williams, a Black woman and one of the most talented tennis players of all time, was ignored when complaining that she felt a blood clot had returned in her lungs post partum. As a recognition of this crisis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a new campaign to improve recognition of the warning signs of problems in pregnancy called the HEAR HER campaign. This issue is a pervasive problem in our lives that runs across the spectrum of Black experience. I have had Black friends, patients, and colleagues who have been ignored when complaining about labor pain, workplace discrimination, and even when trying to advocate for their patients. We need to uplift Black voices so they can be heard and support the initiatives and interventions they are asking for.
We practice standardized responses to emergencies and to health conditions. We use drills to practice our responses to life-threatening emergencies such as STAT cesarean delivery, shoulder dystocia, obstetrical hemorrhage, or treatment of preeclampsia and eclampsia. The Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health has organized evidence-driven protocols called AIM bundles to reduce preventable maternal morbidity and mortality when implemented. Standardization is an important component of equitable treatment and reduction of disparities. The concept has been used across industries to reduce error and bias. The Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health bundles even include a section on Reduction of Peripartum and Ethnic Disparities.
We admit that bias exists and that we need training to recognize and eliminate it. According to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America about racial bias in pain assessment more than 20% of White residents and medical students surveyed believed that Black people had less sensitive nerve endings than Whites.3 Studies show that this stereotype leads to inappropriate pain management in Black patients, a chief concern when considering how patients are treated on labor and delivery or after surgery.4 Additionally, unconscious bias can be addressed by hiring a diverse workforce at all levels. Familiarity with a diverse group can help us learn from one another in our day-to-day lives.
We need to offer the same high-quality preconception counseling to all of our patients. A patient’s perceived race or ethnicity is a poor indicator of their actual health needs. The amount of melanin in our skin is highly variable but our genetics are remarkably similar, therefore our health concerns are similar. All patients deserve a focus on prevention. Folic acid supplements in the form of prenatal vitamins should be recommended. Routine vaccinations and rubella immunity checks should be offered. Basic carrier screening for diseases of hemoglobin (which includes sickle cell trait), fragile X, spinomuscular atrophy, and cystic fibrosis should be offered. Finally, an emphasis on safety, mental health, and daily low-level exercise (i.e., walking) should be promoted to help prevent illness and injury in this age group. The leading causes of death for people of reproductive age are accidents, suicide, homicide, and heart disease – all preventable.
We treat the social determinants of health, not just the patient in front of us. When “race” is a risk factor for disease, it’s usually racism that’s the problem. As stated earlier, how much melanin is in our skin has little to do with our genetics – if we removed our skin, we’d have similar life expectancies and die of similar things. However, it has everything to do with how we navigate our society and access health care. The stress associated with being Black in America is the likely cause of preterm birth rates – leading to infant illness and death – and maternal mortality being higher in Black patients. This is referred to as “weathering” – the cumulative effects of stress as we age. It explains why Black women are more likely to die in pregnancy despite higher levels of education and increasing age – factors that are protective for other groups. Improving access to quality education, reforming the criminal justice system, affordable housing and child care, living wages, family planning, and universal basic health care exemplify the intersectionality of some of our greatest societal challenges. Addressing these root causes will reduce weathering and ultimately, save Black lives.
We strive to train more “underrepresented minorities” in medicine. According to the American Association of Medical Colleges, only 7.3% of medical students in 2019-2020 identified as Black or African American. This is way below their representation of 13% of the U.S. population. I’m proud that my division and department as a whole have hired and promoted diverse faculty with 30% of my generalist ob.gyn. colleagues being people of color. This shows that we have the input of diverse experiences as well as recognize the special concerns of patients of color. Underrepresented students interested in the health professions need us to do more to get their “foot in the door.” They are less likely to have connections to the field of medicine (family members, mentors), have access to prep courses or advisors, or have the finances to support the expensive application process. Reach out to your alma maters and ask how you can help mentor students at a young age and continue through adulthood, support scholarships, support unpaid internship recipients, and promote interconnectedness throughout this community.
I hope I answered my patient’s question in that moment, but I know what needs to be done is bigger that taking care of one patient. It will require small progress, by us, every single day. Until these interventions and others reshape our society, I’ll still have Black patients who say: “Don’t let me die, okay?” with a look right into my soul and a tight grip on my hand. And I’ll feel the immense weight of that trust, and squeeze the hand back.
Dr. Collins (she/her/hers) is assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology, generalist division, at Emory University, Atlanta. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Collins at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. CDC Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm.
2. Maternal Mortality Fact Sheet, 2012-2015. https://dph.georgia.gov/maternal-mortality.
3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Apr 19;113(16):4296-301.
4. Pain Med. 2012 Feb;13(2):150-74.
Rooting out systemic racism: Equal access to maternal, prenatal care
Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing national conversations around racial injustice, it is more important than ever that we identify and root out systemic discrimination – including in our health care system. As an ob.gyn., I’ve spent my entire career making sure that women receive the best care, and have witnessed firsthand the results of a system that provides differing levels of care based on one’s socioeconomic level, race, or ethnicity.
This disparity is borne out in this country’s maternal health outcomes. For example, the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that the maternal mortality rate for black women, 37.1 deaths per 100,000 live births, is more than double the rate for white women at 14.7. In addition, the black infant mortality rate, at 11.4 per 1,000 live births, is also more than double the white infant mortality rate, 4.9. While many of these differences stem from discriminatory levels of coverage and care after delivery, just as important is the coverage and care before delivery: prenatal care.
Prenatal care includes a variety of screening tests, including those that can help expecting mothers identify whether the baby is more or less likely to have certain genetic disorders. These tests include traditional and less accurate options like serum or combined screening, and newer noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) options that use blood samples from the mother to analyze the baby’s DNA.
Research already has demonstrated that NIPT is the most accurate and effective screening option for common chromosomal abnormalities (Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2019;19[4]:1-166). A 2015 New England Journal of Medicine study showed that, without access to NIPT, 22% of pregnancies with Down syndrome were missed. With older screening methods, 5.4% of positive results for Down syndrome were false, compared with 0.06% of the NIPT tests (N Engl J Med 2015;372:1589-97). Older, less accurate screening tests cause unnecessary referrals to specialists for possible invasive testing, resulting in additional costs and undue stress on women and their families.
And yet, troubling new data have shown that black and Hispanic women have less access to NIPT than white women. Currently, NIPT is available to all California women through the state-funded prenatal screening program as a second-tier test. Many women, however, decide to opt out or go outside of the state program to have NIPT as a first-tier test, choosing private payer or other plans instead. New data shared by the California Department of Public Health with ob.gyns. and maternal-fetal medicine physicians in California showed that white women who opted out of California’s state-funded prenatal screening program were more than twice as likely to gain access to NIPT as black and Hispanic women (39%-17%). We can assume this to be true of women outside California as well – women who have no access to a state-funded program like California’s and depend solely on private payer or other health care plans. In fact, although some commercial insurance companies do cover NIPT, noninvasive prenatal screening is not covered by large insurance companies like Aetna and UnitedHealthcare.
As ob.gyns., physicians, and health professionals, we need to ask ourselves: Why is there such a great disparity in the access of superior and more effective NIPT options for black and Hispanic women?
Many reasons are apparent. There are significant differences by ethnic and racial groups in their knowledge of the availability of prenatal testing. Furthermore, there are higher levels of mistrust along certain racial and ethnic lines of the medical system in this country; specific religious or ethnic beliefs also may obviate the use of prenatal testing or diagnosis. Significant differences also exist in the types of health coverage by race and ethnicity, ultimately impacting the ability to have prenatal testing. Finally, there are different physician group recommendations. While medical societies such as the American College of Medical Genetics, International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, and the American Society of Human Genetics all have long endorsed newer NIPT option for all pregnant women, two of the national physician groups that make recommendations about what care pregnant women should be able to access – the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine – only recently have recommended broad access to NIPT. As a result, some state Medicaid programs have not made NIPT available to patients.
We know that racial disparities are a public health crisis in America. The recent data from the California Department of Public Health, paired with COVID-19’s disproportionate impact on blacks and Hispanics, only further illustrate the existing health disparities experienced by this country’s communities of color.
We need to root out systemic discrimination in health care and we can begin with our maternal health care. Providing equitable access to the most accurate and consistent prenatal screenings, including NIPT options, regardless of insurance plan, socioeconomic level, race, or ethnicity is paramount in starting this work.
Dr. Gaither is a double board–certified physician in ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine. She is director of perinatal services for NYC Health+Hospitals/Lincoln. She reports no conflicts of interest. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.
Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing national conversations around racial injustice, it is more important than ever that we identify and root out systemic discrimination – including in our health care system. As an ob.gyn., I’ve spent my entire career making sure that women receive the best care, and have witnessed firsthand the results of a system that provides differing levels of care based on one’s socioeconomic level, race, or ethnicity.
This disparity is borne out in this country’s maternal health outcomes. For example, the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that the maternal mortality rate for black women, 37.1 deaths per 100,000 live births, is more than double the rate for white women at 14.7. In addition, the black infant mortality rate, at 11.4 per 1,000 live births, is also more than double the white infant mortality rate, 4.9. While many of these differences stem from discriminatory levels of coverage and care after delivery, just as important is the coverage and care before delivery: prenatal care.
Prenatal care includes a variety of screening tests, including those that can help expecting mothers identify whether the baby is more or less likely to have certain genetic disorders. These tests include traditional and less accurate options like serum or combined screening, and newer noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) options that use blood samples from the mother to analyze the baby’s DNA.
Research already has demonstrated that NIPT is the most accurate and effective screening option for common chromosomal abnormalities (Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2019;19[4]:1-166). A 2015 New England Journal of Medicine study showed that, without access to NIPT, 22% of pregnancies with Down syndrome were missed. With older screening methods, 5.4% of positive results for Down syndrome were false, compared with 0.06% of the NIPT tests (N Engl J Med 2015;372:1589-97). Older, less accurate screening tests cause unnecessary referrals to specialists for possible invasive testing, resulting in additional costs and undue stress on women and their families.
And yet, troubling new data have shown that black and Hispanic women have less access to NIPT than white women. Currently, NIPT is available to all California women through the state-funded prenatal screening program as a second-tier test. Many women, however, decide to opt out or go outside of the state program to have NIPT as a first-tier test, choosing private payer or other plans instead. New data shared by the California Department of Public Health with ob.gyns. and maternal-fetal medicine physicians in California showed that white women who opted out of California’s state-funded prenatal screening program were more than twice as likely to gain access to NIPT as black and Hispanic women (39%-17%). We can assume this to be true of women outside California as well – women who have no access to a state-funded program like California’s and depend solely on private payer or other health care plans. In fact, although some commercial insurance companies do cover NIPT, noninvasive prenatal screening is not covered by large insurance companies like Aetna and UnitedHealthcare.
As ob.gyns., physicians, and health professionals, we need to ask ourselves: Why is there such a great disparity in the access of superior and more effective NIPT options for black and Hispanic women?
Many reasons are apparent. There are significant differences by ethnic and racial groups in their knowledge of the availability of prenatal testing. Furthermore, there are higher levels of mistrust along certain racial and ethnic lines of the medical system in this country; specific religious or ethnic beliefs also may obviate the use of prenatal testing or diagnosis. Significant differences also exist in the types of health coverage by race and ethnicity, ultimately impacting the ability to have prenatal testing. Finally, there are different physician group recommendations. While medical societies such as the American College of Medical Genetics, International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, and the American Society of Human Genetics all have long endorsed newer NIPT option for all pregnant women, two of the national physician groups that make recommendations about what care pregnant women should be able to access – the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine – only recently have recommended broad access to NIPT. As a result, some state Medicaid programs have not made NIPT available to patients.
We know that racial disparities are a public health crisis in America. The recent data from the California Department of Public Health, paired with COVID-19’s disproportionate impact on blacks and Hispanics, only further illustrate the existing health disparities experienced by this country’s communities of color.
We need to root out systemic discrimination in health care and we can begin with our maternal health care. Providing equitable access to the most accurate and consistent prenatal screenings, including NIPT options, regardless of insurance plan, socioeconomic level, race, or ethnicity is paramount in starting this work.
Dr. Gaither is a double board–certified physician in ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine. She is director of perinatal services for NYC Health+Hospitals/Lincoln. She reports no conflicts of interest. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.
Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing national conversations around racial injustice, it is more important than ever that we identify and root out systemic discrimination – including in our health care system. As an ob.gyn., I’ve spent my entire career making sure that women receive the best care, and have witnessed firsthand the results of a system that provides differing levels of care based on one’s socioeconomic level, race, or ethnicity.
This disparity is borne out in this country’s maternal health outcomes. For example, the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that the maternal mortality rate for black women, 37.1 deaths per 100,000 live births, is more than double the rate for white women at 14.7. In addition, the black infant mortality rate, at 11.4 per 1,000 live births, is also more than double the white infant mortality rate, 4.9. While many of these differences stem from discriminatory levels of coverage and care after delivery, just as important is the coverage and care before delivery: prenatal care.
Prenatal care includes a variety of screening tests, including those that can help expecting mothers identify whether the baby is more or less likely to have certain genetic disorders. These tests include traditional and less accurate options like serum or combined screening, and newer noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) options that use blood samples from the mother to analyze the baby’s DNA.
Research already has demonstrated that NIPT is the most accurate and effective screening option for common chromosomal abnormalities (Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2019;19[4]:1-166). A 2015 New England Journal of Medicine study showed that, without access to NIPT, 22% of pregnancies with Down syndrome were missed. With older screening methods, 5.4% of positive results for Down syndrome were false, compared with 0.06% of the NIPT tests (N Engl J Med 2015;372:1589-97). Older, less accurate screening tests cause unnecessary referrals to specialists for possible invasive testing, resulting in additional costs and undue stress on women and their families.
And yet, troubling new data have shown that black and Hispanic women have less access to NIPT than white women. Currently, NIPT is available to all California women through the state-funded prenatal screening program as a second-tier test. Many women, however, decide to opt out or go outside of the state program to have NIPT as a first-tier test, choosing private payer or other plans instead. New data shared by the California Department of Public Health with ob.gyns. and maternal-fetal medicine physicians in California showed that white women who opted out of California’s state-funded prenatal screening program were more than twice as likely to gain access to NIPT as black and Hispanic women (39%-17%). We can assume this to be true of women outside California as well – women who have no access to a state-funded program like California’s and depend solely on private payer or other health care plans. In fact, although some commercial insurance companies do cover NIPT, noninvasive prenatal screening is not covered by large insurance companies like Aetna and UnitedHealthcare.
As ob.gyns., physicians, and health professionals, we need to ask ourselves: Why is there such a great disparity in the access of superior and more effective NIPT options for black and Hispanic women?
Many reasons are apparent. There are significant differences by ethnic and racial groups in their knowledge of the availability of prenatal testing. Furthermore, there are higher levels of mistrust along certain racial and ethnic lines of the medical system in this country; specific religious or ethnic beliefs also may obviate the use of prenatal testing or diagnosis. Significant differences also exist in the types of health coverage by race and ethnicity, ultimately impacting the ability to have prenatal testing. Finally, there are different physician group recommendations. While medical societies such as the American College of Medical Genetics, International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, and the American Society of Human Genetics all have long endorsed newer NIPT option for all pregnant women, two of the national physician groups that make recommendations about what care pregnant women should be able to access – the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine – only recently have recommended broad access to NIPT. As a result, some state Medicaid programs have not made NIPT available to patients.
We know that racial disparities are a public health crisis in America. The recent data from the California Department of Public Health, paired with COVID-19’s disproportionate impact on blacks and Hispanics, only further illustrate the existing health disparities experienced by this country’s communities of color.
We need to root out systemic discrimination in health care and we can begin with our maternal health care. Providing equitable access to the most accurate and consistent prenatal screenings, including NIPT options, regardless of insurance plan, socioeconomic level, race, or ethnicity is paramount in starting this work.
Dr. Gaither is a double board–certified physician in ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine. She is director of perinatal services for NYC Health+Hospitals/Lincoln. She reports no conflicts of interest. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.
Mitigating psychiatric disorder relapse in pregnancy during pandemic
In a previous column, I addressed some of the issues that quickly arose in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for reproductive psychiatry. These issues ranged from the importance of sustaining well-being in pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, to temporary restrictions that were in place during the early part of the pandemic with respect to performing infertility procedures, to the practical issues of limiting the number of people who could attend to women during labor and delivery in the hospital.
Five months later, we’ve learned a great deal about trying to sustain emotional well-being among pregnant women during COVID-19. There is a high rate of anxiety among women who are pregnant and women who have particularly young children around the various issues of juggling activities of daily living during the pandemic, including switching to remote work and homeschooling children. There is fear of contracting COVID-19 during pregnancy, the exact effects of which are still somewhat unknown. We have seen a shift to telemedicine for prenatal and postpartum obstetrics visits, and a change with respect to visitors and even in-home nurses that would help during the first weeks of life for some couples.
We wondered whether we would see a falloff in the numbers of women presenting to our clinic with questions about the reproductive safety of taking psychiatric medications during pregnancy. We were unclear as to whether women would defer plans to get pregnant given some of the uncertainties that have come with COVID-19. What we’ve seen, at least early on in the pandemic in Massachusetts, has been the opposite. More women during the first 4 months of the pandemic have been seen in our center compared with the same corresponding period over the last 5 years. The precise reasons for this are unclear, but one reason may be that shifting the practice of reproductive psychiatry and pregnancy planning for reproductive-age women to full virtual care has dropped the number of missed appointments to essentially zero. Women perhaps feel an urgency to have a plan for using psychiatric medication during pregnancy. They may also see the benefit of being able to have extended telemedicine consultations that frequently involve their partners, a practice we have always supported, but posed logistical challenges for some.
As our colleagues learned that we had shifted our clinical rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health, which we’ve been doing for 25 years, to a virtual format, we began offering a free 1-hour forum to discuss relevant issues around caring for psychiatrically ill women, with a focus on some of the issues that were particularly relevant during the pandemic. The most common reasons for consultation on our service are the appropriate, safest use of antidepressants and mood stabilizers during pregnancy, and that continues to be the case.
If there has been one guiding principle in treating perinatal depression during pregnancy, it has been our long-standing, laser-like focus on keeping women emotionally well during pregnancy, and to highlight the importance of this with women during consultations prior to and during pregnancy. Relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is one the strongest predictors of postpartum depression, and the impact of untreated depression during pregnancy has been described in the literature and over the years in this column. However, where we want to minimize, if possible, severe onset of illness requiring hospitalization or emergent attention considering it may make social distancing and some of the other mitigating factors vis-à-vis COVID-19 more challenging.
Despite the accumulated data over the last 2 decades on the reproductive safety of antidepressants, women continue to have questions about the safety of these medications during pregnancy. Studies show now that many women would prefer, if at all possible, to defer treatment with antidepressants, and so they come to us with questions about their reproductive safety, the potential of switching to nonpharmacologic interventions, and the use of alternative interventions that might be used to treat their underlying mood disorder.
Investigators at the University of British Columbia recently have tried to inform the field with still another look, not at reproductive safety per se, but at risk of relapse of depression if women discontinue those medicines during pregnancy.1 There is a timeliness to this investigation, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that met a priori criteria for inclusion. Since some of our own group’s early work over 15 years ago on relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy,2 which indicated a substantial difference in risk of relapse between women who continued versus who discontinued antidepressants, other investigators have showed the difference in risk for relapse is not as substantial, and that continuation of medication did not appear to mitigate risk for relapse. In fact, in the systematic review, the investigators demonstrated that as a group, maintaining medicine did not appear to confer particular benefit to patients relative to risk for relapse compared to discontinuation of antidepressants.
However, looking more closely, Bayrampour and colleagues note for women with histories of more severe recurrent, major depression, relapse did in fact appear to be greater in women who discontinued compared with those with cases of mild to moderate depression. It is noteworthy that in both our early and later work, and certainly dovetailing with our clinical practice, we have noted severity of illness does not appear to correlate with the actual decisions women ultimately make regarding what they will do with antidepressants. Specifically, some women with very severe illness histories will discontinue antidepressants regardless of their risk for relapse. Alternatively, women with mild to moderate illness will sometimes elect to stay on antidepressant therapy. With all the information that we have about fetal exposure to antidepressants on one hand, the “unknown unknowns” are an understandable concern to both patients and clinicians. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of how to best counsel women on continuing or discontinuing antidepressants as they plan to conceive or during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.
The literature cited and clinical experience over the last 3 decades suggests rather strongly that there is a relatively low likelihood women with histories of severe recurrent disease will be able to successfully discontinue antidepressants in the absence of relapse. A greater question is, what is the best way to proceed for women who have been on maintenance therapy and had more moderate symptoms?
I am inspired by some of the more recent literature that has tried to elucidate the role of nonpharmacologic interventions such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in an effort to mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who are well with histories of depression. To date, data do not inform the question as to whether MBCT can be used to mitigate risk of depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressants. That research question is actively being studied by several investigators, including ourselves.
Of particular interest is whether the addition of mindfulness practices such as MBCT in treatment could mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressant treatment, as that would certainly be a no-harm intervention that could mitigate risk even in a lower risk sample of patients. The question of how to “thread the needle” during the pandemic and best approach woman with a history of recurrent major depression on antidepressants is particularly timely and critical.
Regardless, we make clinical decisions collaboratively with patients based on their histories and individual wishes, and perhaps what we have learned over the last 5 months is the use of telemedicine does afford us the opportunity, regardless of the decisions that patients make, to more closely follow the clinical trajectory of women during pregnancy and the postpartum period so that regardless of treatment, we have an opportunity to intervene early when needed and to ascertain changes in clinical status early to mitigate the risk of frank relapse. From a reproductive psychiatric point of view, that is a silver lining with respect to the associated challenges that have come along with the pandemic.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. J Clin Psychiatry 2020;81(4):19r13134.
2. JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295(5):499-507.
In a previous column, I addressed some of the issues that quickly arose in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for reproductive psychiatry. These issues ranged from the importance of sustaining well-being in pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, to temporary restrictions that were in place during the early part of the pandemic with respect to performing infertility procedures, to the practical issues of limiting the number of people who could attend to women during labor and delivery in the hospital.
Five months later, we’ve learned a great deal about trying to sustain emotional well-being among pregnant women during COVID-19. There is a high rate of anxiety among women who are pregnant and women who have particularly young children around the various issues of juggling activities of daily living during the pandemic, including switching to remote work and homeschooling children. There is fear of contracting COVID-19 during pregnancy, the exact effects of which are still somewhat unknown. We have seen a shift to telemedicine for prenatal and postpartum obstetrics visits, and a change with respect to visitors and even in-home nurses that would help during the first weeks of life for some couples.
We wondered whether we would see a falloff in the numbers of women presenting to our clinic with questions about the reproductive safety of taking psychiatric medications during pregnancy. We were unclear as to whether women would defer plans to get pregnant given some of the uncertainties that have come with COVID-19. What we’ve seen, at least early on in the pandemic in Massachusetts, has been the opposite. More women during the first 4 months of the pandemic have been seen in our center compared with the same corresponding period over the last 5 years. The precise reasons for this are unclear, but one reason may be that shifting the practice of reproductive psychiatry and pregnancy planning for reproductive-age women to full virtual care has dropped the number of missed appointments to essentially zero. Women perhaps feel an urgency to have a plan for using psychiatric medication during pregnancy. They may also see the benefit of being able to have extended telemedicine consultations that frequently involve their partners, a practice we have always supported, but posed logistical challenges for some.
As our colleagues learned that we had shifted our clinical rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health, which we’ve been doing for 25 years, to a virtual format, we began offering a free 1-hour forum to discuss relevant issues around caring for psychiatrically ill women, with a focus on some of the issues that were particularly relevant during the pandemic. The most common reasons for consultation on our service are the appropriate, safest use of antidepressants and mood stabilizers during pregnancy, and that continues to be the case.
If there has been one guiding principle in treating perinatal depression during pregnancy, it has been our long-standing, laser-like focus on keeping women emotionally well during pregnancy, and to highlight the importance of this with women during consultations prior to and during pregnancy. Relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is one the strongest predictors of postpartum depression, and the impact of untreated depression during pregnancy has been described in the literature and over the years in this column. However, where we want to minimize, if possible, severe onset of illness requiring hospitalization or emergent attention considering it may make social distancing and some of the other mitigating factors vis-à-vis COVID-19 more challenging.
Despite the accumulated data over the last 2 decades on the reproductive safety of antidepressants, women continue to have questions about the safety of these medications during pregnancy. Studies show now that many women would prefer, if at all possible, to defer treatment with antidepressants, and so they come to us with questions about their reproductive safety, the potential of switching to nonpharmacologic interventions, and the use of alternative interventions that might be used to treat their underlying mood disorder.
Investigators at the University of British Columbia recently have tried to inform the field with still another look, not at reproductive safety per se, but at risk of relapse of depression if women discontinue those medicines during pregnancy.1 There is a timeliness to this investigation, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that met a priori criteria for inclusion. Since some of our own group’s early work over 15 years ago on relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy,2 which indicated a substantial difference in risk of relapse between women who continued versus who discontinued antidepressants, other investigators have showed the difference in risk for relapse is not as substantial, and that continuation of medication did not appear to mitigate risk for relapse. In fact, in the systematic review, the investigators demonstrated that as a group, maintaining medicine did not appear to confer particular benefit to patients relative to risk for relapse compared to discontinuation of antidepressants.
However, looking more closely, Bayrampour and colleagues note for women with histories of more severe recurrent, major depression, relapse did in fact appear to be greater in women who discontinued compared with those with cases of mild to moderate depression. It is noteworthy that in both our early and later work, and certainly dovetailing with our clinical practice, we have noted severity of illness does not appear to correlate with the actual decisions women ultimately make regarding what they will do with antidepressants. Specifically, some women with very severe illness histories will discontinue antidepressants regardless of their risk for relapse. Alternatively, women with mild to moderate illness will sometimes elect to stay on antidepressant therapy. With all the information that we have about fetal exposure to antidepressants on one hand, the “unknown unknowns” are an understandable concern to both patients and clinicians. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of how to best counsel women on continuing or discontinuing antidepressants as they plan to conceive or during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.
The literature cited and clinical experience over the last 3 decades suggests rather strongly that there is a relatively low likelihood women with histories of severe recurrent disease will be able to successfully discontinue antidepressants in the absence of relapse. A greater question is, what is the best way to proceed for women who have been on maintenance therapy and had more moderate symptoms?
I am inspired by some of the more recent literature that has tried to elucidate the role of nonpharmacologic interventions such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in an effort to mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who are well with histories of depression. To date, data do not inform the question as to whether MBCT can be used to mitigate risk of depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressants. That research question is actively being studied by several investigators, including ourselves.
Of particular interest is whether the addition of mindfulness practices such as MBCT in treatment could mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressant treatment, as that would certainly be a no-harm intervention that could mitigate risk even in a lower risk sample of patients. The question of how to “thread the needle” during the pandemic and best approach woman with a history of recurrent major depression on antidepressants is particularly timely and critical.
Regardless, we make clinical decisions collaboratively with patients based on their histories and individual wishes, and perhaps what we have learned over the last 5 months is the use of telemedicine does afford us the opportunity, regardless of the decisions that patients make, to more closely follow the clinical trajectory of women during pregnancy and the postpartum period so that regardless of treatment, we have an opportunity to intervene early when needed and to ascertain changes in clinical status early to mitigate the risk of frank relapse. From a reproductive psychiatric point of view, that is a silver lining with respect to the associated challenges that have come along with the pandemic.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. J Clin Psychiatry 2020;81(4):19r13134.
2. JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295(5):499-507.
In a previous column, I addressed some of the issues that quickly arose in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for reproductive psychiatry. These issues ranged from the importance of sustaining well-being in pregnant and postpartum women during the pandemic, to temporary restrictions that were in place during the early part of the pandemic with respect to performing infertility procedures, to the practical issues of limiting the number of people who could attend to women during labor and delivery in the hospital.
Five months later, we’ve learned a great deal about trying to sustain emotional well-being among pregnant women during COVID-19. There is a high rate of anxiety among women who are pregnant and women who have particularly young children around the various issues of juggling activities of daily living during the pandemic, including switching to remote work and homeschooling children. There is fear of contracting COVID-19 during pregnancy, the exact effects of which are still somewhat unknown. We have seen a shift to telemedicine for prenatal and postpartum obstetrics visits, and a change with respect to visitors and even in-home nurses that would help during the first weeks of life for some couples.
We wondered whether we would see a falloff in the numbers of women presenting to our clinic with questions about the reproductive safety of taking psychiatric medications during pregnancy. We were unclear as to whether women would defer plans to get pregnant given some of the uncertainties that have come with COVID-19. What we’ve seen, at least early on in the pandemic in Massachusetts, has been the opposite. More women during the first 4 months of the pandemic have been seen in our center compared with the same corresponding period over the last 5 years. The precise reasons for this are unclear, but one reason may be that shifting the practice of reproductive psychiatry and pregnancy planning for reproductive-age women to full virtual care has dropped the number of missed appointments to essentially zero. Women perhaps feel an urgency to have a plan for using psychiatric medication during pregnancy. They may also see the benefit of being able to have extended telemedicine consultations that frequently involve their partners, a practice we have always supported, but posed logistical challenges for some.
As our colleagues learned that we had shifted our clinical rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health, which we’ve been doing for 25 years, to a virtual format, we began offering a free 1-hour forum to discuss relevant issues around caring for psychiatrically ill women, with a focus on some of the issues that were particularly relevant during the pandemic. The most common reasons for consultation on our service are the appropriate, safest use of antidepressants and mood stabilizers during pregnancy, and that continues to be the case.
If there has been one guiding principle in treating perinatal depression during pregnancy, it has been our long-standing, laser-like focus on keeping women emotionally well during pregnancy, and to highlight the importance of this with women during consultations prior to and during pregnancy. Relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy is one the strongest predictors of postpartum depression, and the impact of untreated depression during pregnancy has been described in the literature and over the years in this column. However, where we want to minimize, if possible, severe onset of illness requiring hospitalization or emergent attention considering it may make social distancing and some of the other mitigating factors vis-à-vis COVID-19 more challenging.
Despite the accumulated data over the last 2 decades on the reproductive safety of antidepressants, women continue to have questions about the safety of these medications during pregnancy. Studies show now that many women would prefer, if at all possible, to defer treatment with antidepressants, and so they come to us with questions about their reproductive safety, the potential of switching to nonpharmacologic interventions, and the use of alternative interventions that might be used to treat their underlying mood disorder.
Investigators at the University of British Columbia recently have tried to inform the field with still another look, not at reproductive safety per se, but at risk of relapse of depression if women discontinue those medicines during pregnancy.1 There is a timeliness to this investigation, which was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that met a priori criteria for inclusion. Since some of our own group’s early work over 15 years ago on relapse of psychiatric disorder during pregnancy,2 which indicated a substantial difference in risk of relapse between women who continued versus who discontinued antidepressants, other investigators have showed the difference in risk for relapse is not as substantial, and that continuation of medication did not appear to mitigate risk for relapse. In fact, in the systematic review, the investigators demonstrated that as a group, maintaining medicine did not appear to confer particular benefit to patients relative to risk for relapse compared to discontinuation of antidepressants.
However, looking more closely, Bayrampour and colleagues note for women with histories of more severe recurrent, major depression, relapse did in fact appear to be greater in women who discontinued compared with those with cases of mild to moderate depression. It is noteworthy that in both our early and later work, and certainly dovetailing with our clinical practice, we have noted severity of illness does not appear to correlate with the actual decisions women ultimately make regarding what they will do with antidepressants. Specifically, some women with very severe illness histories will discontinue antidepressants regardless of their risk for relapse. Alternatively, women with mild to moderate illness will sometimes elect to stay on antidepressant therapy. With all the information that we have about fetal exposure to antidepressants on one hand, the “unknown unknowns” are an understandable concern to both patients and clinicians. Clinicians are faced with the dilemma of how to best counsel women on continuing or discontinuing antidepressants as they plan to conceive or during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.
The literature cited and clinical experience over the last 3 decades suggests rather strongly that there is a relatively low likelihood women with histories of severe recurrent disease will be able to successfully discontinue antidepressants in the absence of relapse. A greater question is, what is the best way to proceed for women who have been on maintenance therapy and had more moderate symptoms?
I am inspired by some of the more recent literature that has tried to elucidate the role of nonpharmacologic interventions such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in an effort to mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who are well with histories of depression. To date, data do not inform the question as to whether MBCT can be used to mitigate risk of depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressants. That research question is actively being studied by several investigators, including ourselves.
Of particular interest is whether the addition of mindfulness practices such as MBCT in treatment could mitigate risk for depressive relapse in pregnant women who continue or discontinue antidepressant treatment, as that would certainly be a no-harm intervention that could mitigate risk even in a lower risk sample of patients. The question of how to “thread the needle” during the pandemic and best approach woman with a history of recurrent major depression on antidepressants is particularly timely and critical.
Regardless, we make clinical decisions collaboratively with patients based on their histories and individual wishes, and perhaps what we have learned over the last 5 months is the use of telemedicine does afford us the opportunity, regardless of the decisions that patients make, to more closely follow the clinical trajectory of women during pregnancy and the postpartum period so that regardless of treatment, we have an opportunity to intervene early when needed and to ascertain changes in clinical status early to mitigate the risk of frank relapse. From a reproductive psychiatric point of view, that is a silver lining with respect to the associated challenges that have come along with the pandemic.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. J Clin Psychiatry 2020;81(4):19r13134.
2. JAMA. 2006 Feb 1;295(5):499-507.
Pregnancy can be ‘a vulnerable time’ for developing mental disorders
Pregnancy and the postpartum period are a “very vulnerable time for mental disorders,” according to Henry A. Nasrallah, MD.
“Those changes that are helping pregnancy can also have psychiatric and psychopathological implications,” Dr. Nasrallah said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.
Numerous dramatic changes in physiology, immune functions, cognition, neuroplasticity, and behavior occur during pregnancy, noted Dr. Nasrallah of the University of Cincinnati. For example, the volume of the brain actually decreases during pregnancy, but brain size recovers over the 6 months after delivery. “Clearly, this is a transitional and a transient phenomenon,” he said. “The decrease in brain volume is associated with changes in brain metabolism and an increase in intracellular pH after delivery.”
But these changes can also carry risks for psychiatric disorders, Dr. Nasrallah explained. Changes in the hippocampus, which is “very plastic throughout adulthood,” have been linked to aging, cognition, pregnancy, and motherhood. “The hippocampus is the ‘Grand Central Station’ of memory in the brain, and the hippocampus is affected by neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorders, which disproportionately affect women,” he said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education.
Dr. Nasrallah said the hippocampus has particular susceptibility during pregnancy and in the postpartum period, or in women who have previously been pregnant.
Gender of the fetus can even affect the health of the mother, he added. In women who are pregnant with male fetuses, working memory and spatial ability are higher than in women who are pregnant with female fetuses, Dr. Nasrallah said. This is tied to higher numbers of proinflammatory cytokines present in male fetuses. In female fetuses, there are lower levels of interferon-gamma and interleukin (IL)-12 in the first trimester, and higher levels of IL-1 beta, tumor necrosis factor B, IL-5, and IL-10 in the second trimester.
In particular,
“Cytokine interleukin-10 and interleukin-6 are both increased during psychosis and during depression, so you can see the vulnerability for developing postpartum depression.” Some women “have other genes that make them susceptible for mood disorders, and the pregnancy can push them over the edge,” he said.
If women have bipolar disorder prior to delivery, “they have a very high risk of postpartum depression, possibly because of this immune dysregulation that serves the pregnancy, but unfortunately makes the woman vulnerable for postpartum psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Nasrallah said.
The effects of having children extend into middle age, Dr. Nasrallah said. Research has shown giving birth to more than one to two children can affect a woman’s risk for Alzheimer’s disease and risk for early-onset of the disease. Women who have three or fewer children later in life are also more likely to live longer, he said. In general, a longer reproductive period, duration of breastfeeding, and low number of pregnancies result in better cognition, while younger age at first pregnancy leads to worse cognition.
So-called pregnancy brain causes some cognitive functions to decline, and women may experience trouble concentrating and memory disturbance. “Other functions increase for the sake of the baby,” including a high reaction to threatening stimuli, absent-mindedness, motivation, reward, fear, executive functions, social cognition, salience, and attachment, Dr. Nasrallah said. In some cases, hormone-driven remodeling of the maternal brain can cause postpartum psychosis, which can reduce the anterior cingulate cortex, left parahippocampal gyrus volume, and left superior temporal gyrus volume.
Most changes in the brain, however, appear to be temporary, Dr. Nasrallah noted. Executive function improves 2-6 months after delivery, which includes goal and directed behavior, working memory, inhibitory function, and cognitive flexibility. In the postpartum period, “the gray matter increases in the first 3-4 months, especially in the brain areas that are involved in maternal behavior that includes amygdala, hypothalamus, and prefrontal cortex,” he added. “All of those changes correlate with positive maternal attachment, and so that makes it easier for the mother to bond with the baby.
“Don’t think of it as a negative,” he said. “The decline in brain volume is actually associated with better mothering and increased attachment between the mother and the baby, which is vital for survival of the baby.”
Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Nasrallah reports no relevant financial disclosures.
Pregnancy and the postpartum period are a “very vulnerable time for mental disorders,” according to Henry A. Nasrallah, MD.
“Those changes that are helping pregnancy can also have psychiatric and psychopathological implications,” Dr. Nasrallah said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.
Numerous dramatic changes in physiology, immune functions, cognition, neuroplasticity, and behavior occur during pregnancy, noted Dr. Nasrallah of the University of Cincinnati. For example, the volume of the brain actually decreases during pregnancy, but brain size recovers over the 6 months after delivery. “Clearly, this is a transitional and a transient phenomenon,” he said. “The decrease in brain volume is associated with changes in brain metabolism and an increase in intracellular pH after delivery.”
But these changes can also carry risks for psychiatric disorders, Dr. Nasrallah explained. Changes in the hippocampus, which is “very plastic throughout adulthood,” have been linked to aging, cognition, pregnancy, and motherhood. “The hippocampus is the ‘Grand Central Station’ of memory in the brain, and the hippocampus is affected by neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorders, which disproportionately affect women,” he said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education.
Dr. Nasrallah said the hippocampus has particular susceptibility during pregnancy and in the postpartum period, or in women who have previously been pregnant.
Gender of the fetus can even affect the health of the mother, he added. In women who are pregnant with male fetuses, working memory and spatial ability are higher than in women who are pregnant with female fetuses, Dr. Nasrallah said. This is tied to higher numbers of proinflammatory cytokines present in male fetuses. In female fetuses, there are lower levels of interferon-gamma and interleukin (IL)-12 in the first trimester, and higher levels of IL-1 beta, tumor necrosis factor B, IL-5, and IL-10 in the second trimester.
In particular,
“Cytokine interleukin-10 and interleukin-6 are both increased during psychosis and during depression, so you can see the vulnerability for developing postpartum depression.” Some women “have other genes that make them susceptible for mood disorders, and the pregnancy can push them over the edge,” he said.
If women have bipolar disorder prior to delivery, “they have a very high risk of postpartum depression, possibly because of this immune dysregulation that serves the pregnancy, but unfortunately makes the woman vulnerable for postpartum psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Nasrallah said.
The effects of having children extend into middle age, Dr. Nasrallah said. Research has shown giving birth to more than one to two children can affect a woman’s risk for Alzheimer’s disease and risk for early-onset of the disease. Women who have three or fewer children later in life are also more likely to live longer, he said. In general, a longer reproductive period, duration of breastfeeding, and low number of pregnancies result in better cognition, while younger age at first pregnancy leads to worse cognition.
So-called pregnancy brain causes some cognitive functions to decline, and women may experience trouble concentrating and memory disturbance. “Other functions increase for the sake of the baby,” including a high reaction to threatening stimuli, absent-mindedness, motivation, reward, fear, executive functions, social cognition, salience, and attachment, Dr. Nasrallah said. In some cases, hormone-driven remodeling of the maternal brain can cause postpartum psychosis, which can reduce the anterior cingulate cortex, left parahippocampal gyrus volume, and left superior temporal gyrus volume.
Most changes in the brain, however, appear to be temporary, Dr. Nasrallah noted. Executive function improves 2-6 months after delivery, which includes goal and directed behavior, working memory, inhibitory function, and cognitive flexibility. In the postpartum period, “the gray matter increases in the first 3-4 months, especially in the brain areas that are involved in maternal behavior that includes amygdala, hypothalamus, and prefrontal cortex,” he added. “All of those changes correlate with positive maternal attachment, and so that makes it easier for the mother to bond with the baby.
“Don’t think of it as a negative,” he said. “The decline in brain volume is actually associated with better mothering and increased attachment between the mother and the baby, which is vital for survival of the baby.”
Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Nasrallah reports no relevant financial disclosures.
Pregnancy and the postpartum period are a “very vulnerable time for mental disorders,” according to Henry A. Nasrallah, MD.
“Those changes that are helping pregnancy can also have psychiatric and psychopathological implications,” Dr. Nasrallah said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.
Numerous dramatic changes in physiology, immune functions, cognition, neuroplasticity, and behavior occur during pregnancy, noted Dr. Nasrallah of the University of Cincinnati. For example, the volume of the brain actually decreases during pregnancy, but brain size recovers over the 6 months after delivery. “Clearly, this is a transitional and a transient phenomenon,” he said. “The decrease in brain volume is associated with changes in brain metabolism and an increase in intracellular pH after delivery.”
But these changes can also carry risks for psychiatric disorders, Dr. Nasrallah explained. Changes in the hippocampus, which is “very plastic throughout adulthood,” have been linked to aging, cognition, pregnancy, and motherhood. “The hippocampus is the ‘Grand Central Station’ of memory in the brain, and the hippocampus is affected by neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorders, which disproportionately affect women,” he said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education.
Dr. Nasrallah said the hippocampus has particular susceptibility during pregnancy and in the postpartum period, or in women who have previously been pregnant.
Gender of the fetus can even affect the health of the mother, he added. In women who are pregnant with male fetuses, working memory and spatial ability are higher than in women who are pregnant with female fetuses, Dr. Nasrallah said. This is tied to higher numbers of proinflammatory cytokines present in male fetuses. In female fetuses, there are lower levels of interferon-gamma and interleukin (IL)-12 in the first trimester, and higher levels of IL-1 beta, tumor necrosis factor B, IL-5, and IL-10 in the second trimester.
In particular,
“Cytokine interleukin-10 and interleukin-6 are both increased during psychosis and during depression, so you can see the vulnerability for developing postpartum depression.” Some women “have other genes that make them susceptible for mood disorders, and the pregnancy can push them over the edge,” he said.
If women have bipolar disorder prior to delivery, “they have a very high risk of postpartum depression, possibly because of this immune dysregulation that serves the pregnancy, but unfortunately makes the woman vulnerable for postpartum psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Nasrallah said.
The effects of having children extend into middle age, Dr. Nasrallah said. Research has shown giving birth to more than one to two children can affect a woman’s risk for Alzheimer’s disease and risk for early-onset of the disease. Women who have three or fewer children later in life are also more likely to live longer, he said. In general, a longer reproductive period, duration of breastfeeding, and low number of pregnancies result in better cognition, while younger age at first pregnancy leads to worse cognition.
So-called pregnancy brain causes some cognitive functions to decline, and women may experience trouble concentrating and memory disturbance. “Other functions increase for the sake of the baby,” including a high reaction to threatening stimuli, absent-mindedness, motivation, reward, fear, executive functions, social cognition, salience, and attachment, Dr. Nasrallah said. In some cases, hormone-driven remodeling of the maternal brain can cause postpartum psychosis, which can reduce the anterior cingulate cortex, left parahippocampal gyrus volume, and left superior temporal gyrus volume.
Most changes in the brain, however, appear to be temporary, Dr. Nasrallah noted. Executive function improves 2-6 months after delivery, which includes goal and directed behavior, working memory, inhibitory function, and cognitive flexibility. In the postpartum period, “the gray matter increases in the first 3-4 months, especially in the brain areas that are involved in maternal behavior that includes amygdala, hypothalamus, and prefrontal cortex,” he added. “All of those changes correlate with positive maternal attachment, and so that makes it easier for the mother to bond with the baby.
“Don’t think of it as a negative,” he said. “The decline in brain volume is actually associated with better mothering and increased attachment between the mother and the baby, which is vital for survival of the baby.”
Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Nasrallah reports no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM FOCUS ON NEUROPSYCHIATRY 2020
New uterine compression technique controls postpartum hemorrhage
A newly described uterine compression technique that uses simple supplies and does not require hysterotomy was successful in controlling postpartum hemorrhage in 16 of 18 (89%) women in two teaching hospitals in Nigeria, averting the need for hysterectomy in these women.
Each of the women had severe postpartum hemorrhage attributable to uterine atony and had undergone local protocols for medical management “to no avail,” Chidi Ochu Uzoma Esike, MD, who developed the technique, wrote in a report published in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
The technique involves placing six polyglactin (Vicryl) #2 or chromic #2 sutures in the lower uterine segment – three anteriorly and three posteriorly – and could be particularly useful in developing countries, where many women die from postpartum hemorrhage “because most of the medical officers who attend the majority of births in health facilities can perform cesarean delivery but cannot perform hysterectomy and find existing compression suture techniques too complex to perform,” Dr. Esike wrote in the case series report.
In addition, “specialized sutures and needles required for some of the known compression techniques are not readily available,” said Dr. Esike of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Alex Ekwueme Federal University Hospital and Ebyonyi State University in Abakaliki, Nigeria.
Angela Martin, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, said that “having a quick and effective surgical technique [for uncontrollable postpartum hemorrhage] is essential.”
“I love that Esike’s technique uses polyglactin (Vicryl) or chromic sutures. These are familiar to most surgeons, cheap, and typically available even in most resource-deficient settings,” said Dr. Martin, who was asked to comment on the report, adding that several of the known surgical techniques for uterine atony require a skilled operator and are indeed not universally feasible.
“If successful,” Dr. Martin said in an interview, “compression sutures can be lifesaving and fertility preserving.”
The technique involves tying the two middle sutures (one placed anteriorly and one posteriorly) at the fundus as an assistant slowly and continuously compresses the uterus. The more laterally placed sutures are tied similarly, with each pair tied at about 4 cm from the lateral edge of the uterus. “As the uterus is compressed, the slack should be taken up by the sutures before tying,” said Dr. Esike, whose report features both diagrammatic and photographic representations of suture insertion and tying.
For patients who delivered vaginally – nine in this case series – the technique involves performing a laparotomy and exteriorizing the uterus. The technique’s “suture placement,” Dr. Esike wrote, “took 11-25 minutes from the onset of laparotomy to completion.” There were no short or long-term complications in any of the 18 patients.
B-Lynch compression sutures are more complex to perform and require a larger curved needle, Dr. Esike wrote, and the Hayman technique similarly requires a longer needle that may not be available in resource-constrained countries. The hysterotomy required in the B-Lynch technique, Dr. Esike added, “leads to the uterus not contracting maximally until it is repaired,” which increases blood loss from the procedure.
Dr. Martin said the small size of the case series is not discouraging. “The B-Lynch suture was widely adopted after it was described in five cases in 1997,” she said. There are no randomized controlled trials to suggest that one method of uterine compression sutures is better than another. “Ultimately,” she said, “the technique chosen will depend on the surgeon’s training and available supplies.”
Dr. Esike had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Martin had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Esike COU. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003947.
A newly described uterine compression technique that uses simple supplies and does not require hysterotomy was successful in controlling postpartum hemorrhage in 16 of 18 (89%) women in two teaching hospitals in Nigeria, averting the need for hysterectomy in these women.
Each of the women had severe postpartum hemorrhage attributable to uterine atony and had undergone local protocols for medical management “to no avail,” Chidi Ochu Uzoma Esike, MD, who developed the technique, wrote in a report published in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
The technique involves placing six polyglactin (Vicryl) #2 or chromic #2 sutures in the lower uterine segment – three anteriorly and three posteriorly – and could be particularly useful in developing countries, where many women die from postpartum hemorrhage “because most of the medical officers who attend the majority of births in health facilities can perform cesarean delivery but cannot perform hysterectomy and find existing compression suture techniques too complex to perform,” Dr. Esike wrote in the case series report.
In addition, “specialized sutures and needles required for some of the known compression techniques are not readily available,” said Dr. Esike of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Alex Ekwueme Federal University Hospital and Ebyonyi State University in Abakaliki, Nigeria.
Angela Martin, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, said that “having a quick and effective surgical technique [for uncontrollable postpartum hemorrhage] is essential.”
“I love that Esike’s technique uses polyglactin (Vicryl) or chromic sutures. These are familiar to most surgeons, cheap, and typically available even in most resource-deficient settings,” said Dr. Martin, who was asked to comment on the report, adding that several of the known surgical techniques for uterine atony require a skilled operator and are indeed not universally feasible.
“If successful,” Dr. Martin said in an interview, “compression sutures can be lifesaving and fertility preserving.”
The technique involves tying the two middle sutures (one placed anteriorly and one posteriorly) at the fundus as an assistant slowly and continuously compresses the uterus. The more laterally placed sutures are tied similarly, with each pair tied at about 4 cm from the lateral edge of the uterus. “As the uterus is compressed, the slack should be taken up by the sutures before tying,” said Dr. Esike, whose report features both diagrammatic and photographic representations of suture insertion and tying.
For patients who delivered vaginally – nine in this case series – the technique involves performing a laparotomy and exteriorizing the uterus. The technique’s “suture placement,” Dr. Esike wrote, “took 11-25 minutes from the onset of laparotomy to completion.” There were no short or long-term complications in any of the 18 patients.
B-Lynch compression sutures are more complex to perform and require a larger curved needle, Dr. Esike wrote, and the Hayman technique similarly requires a longer needle that may not be available in resource-constrained countries. The hysterotomy required in the B-Lynch technique, Dr. Esike added, “leads to the uterus not contracting maximally until it is repaired,” which increases blood loss from the procedure.
Dr. Martin said the small size of the case series is not discouraging. “The B-Lynch suture was widely adopted after it was described in five cases in 1997,” she said. There are no randomized controlled trials to suggest that one method of uterine compression sutures is better than another. “Ultimately,” she said, “the technique chosen will depend on the surgeon’s training and available supplies.”
Dr. Esike had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Martin had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Esike COU. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003947.
A newly described uterine compression technique that uses simple supplies and does not require hysterotomy was successful in controlling postpartum hemorrhage in 16 of 18 (89%) women in two teaching hospitals in Nigeria, averting the need for hysterectomy in these women.
Each of the women had severe postpartum hemorrhage attributable to uterine atony and had undergone local protocols for medical management “to no avail,” Chidi Ochu Uzoma Esike, MD, who developed the technique, wrote in a report published in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
The technique involves placing six polyglactin (Vicryl) #2 or chromic #2 sutures in the lower uterine segment – three anteriorly and three posteriorly – and could be particularly useful in developing countries, where many women die from postpartum hemorrhage “because most of the medical officers who attend the majority of births in health facilities can perform cesarean delivery but cannot perform hysterectomy and find existing compression suture techniques too complex to perform,” Dr. Esike wrote in the case series report.
In addition, “specialized sutures and needles required for some of the known compression techniques are not readily available,” said Dr. Esike of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Alex Ekwueme Federal University Hospital and Ebyonyi State University in Abakaliki, Nigeria.
Angela Martin, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, said that “having a quick and effective surgical technique [for uncontrollable postpartum hemorrhage] is essential.”
“I love that Esike’s technique uses polyglactin (Vicryl) or chromic sutures. These are familiar to most surgeons, cheap, and typically available even in most resource-deficient settings,” said Dr. Martin, who was asked to comment on the report, adding that several of the known surgical techniques for uterine atony require a skilled operator and are indeed not universally feasible.
“If successful,” Dr. Martin said in an interview, “compression sutures can be lifesaving and fertility preserving.”
The technique involves tying the two middle sutures (one placed anteriorly and one posteriorly) at the fundus as an assistant slowly and continuously compresses the uterus. The more laterally placed sutures are tied similarly, with each pair tied at about 4 cm from the lateral edge of the uterus. “As the uterus is compressed, the slack should be taken up by the sutures before tying,” said Dr. Esike, whose report features both diagrammatic and photographic representations of suture insertion and tying.
For patients who delivered vaginally – nine in this case series – the technique involves performing a laparotomy and exteriorizing the uterus. The technique’s “suture placement,” Dr. Esike wrote, “took 11-25 minutes from the onset of laparotomy to completion.” There were no short or long-term complications in any of the 18 patients.
B-Lynch compression sutures are more complex to perform and require a larger curved needle, Dr. Esike wrote, and the Hayman technique similarly requires a longer needle that may not be available in resource-constrained countries. The hysterotomy required in the B-Lynch technique, Dr. Esike added, “leads to the uterus not contracting maximally until it is repaired,” which increases blood loss from the procedure.
Dr. Martin said the small size of the case series is not discouraging. “The B-Lynch suture was widely adopted after it was described in five cases in 1997,” she said. There are no randomized controlled trials to suggest that one method of uterine compression sutures is better than another. “Ultimately,” she said, “the technique chosen will depend on the surgeon’s training and available supplies.”
Dr. Esike had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Martin had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Esike COU. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003947.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
SGLT2 inhibitors with metformin look safe for bone
The combination of sodium-glucose transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and metformin is not associated with an increase in fracture risk among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to a new meta-analysis of 25 randomized, controlled trials.
Researchers at The Second Clinical College of Dalian Medical University in Jiangsu, China, compared fracture risk associated with the metformin/SLGT2 combination to metformin alone as well as other T2D therapeutics, and found no differences in risk. The study was published online Aug. 11 in Osteoporosis International.
T2D is associated with an increased risk of fracture, though causative mechanisms remain uncertain. Some lines of evidence suggest multiple factors may contribute to fractures, including hyperglycemia, oxidative stress, toxic effects of advanced glycosylation end-products, altered insulin levels, and treatment-induced hypoglycemia, as well as an association between T2D and increased risk of falls.
Antidiabetes drugs can have positive or negative effects on bone. thiazolidinediones, insulin, and sulfonylureas may increase risk of fractures, while dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-2 (GLP-2) receptor agonists may be protective. Metformin may also reduce fracture risk.
SGLT-2 inhibitors interrupt glucose reabsorption in the kidney, leading to improved glycemic control. Other benefits include improved renal and cardiovascular outcomes, weight loss, and reduced blood pressure, liver fat, and serum uric acid levels.
These properties have made SGLT-2 inhibitors combined with metformin an important therapy for patients at high risk of atherosclerotic disease, or who have heart failure or chronic kidney disease.
But SGLT-2 inhibition increases osmotic diuresis, and this could alter the mineral balance within bone. Some studies also showed that SGLT-2 inhibitors led to changes in bone turnover markers, bone mineral density, and bone microarchitecture. Observational studies of the SGLT-2 inhibitor canagliflozin found associations with a higher rate of fracture risk in patients taking the drug.
Such studies carry the risk of confounding factors, so the researchers took advantage of the fact that many recent clinical trials have examined the impact of SGLT-2 inhibitors on T2D. They pooled data from 25 clinical trials with a total of 19,500 participants, 9,662 of whom received SGLT-2 inhibitors plus metformin; 9,838 received other active comparators.
The fracture rate was 0.91% in the SGLT-2 inhibitors/metformin group, and 0.80% among controls (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.71-1.32), with no heterogeneity. Metformin alone was not associated with a change in fracture rate (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.44-2.08), nor were other forms of diabetes control (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69-1.31).
There were some differences in fracture risk among SGLT-2 inhibitors when studied individually, though none differed significantly from controls. The highest risk was associated with the canagliflozin/metformin (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.66-7.27), followed by dapagliflozin/metformin (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.50-1.64), empagliflozin/metformin (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.59-1.50), and ertugliflozin/metformin (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.38-1.54).
There were no differences with respect to hip or lumbar spine fractures, or other fractures. The researchers found no differences in bone mineral density or bone turnover markers.
The meta-analysis is limited by the relatively short average follow-up in the included studies, which was 61 weeks. Bone damage may occur over longer time periods. Bone fractures were also not a prespecified adverse event in most included studies.
The studies also did not provide detailed information on the types of fractures experienced, such as whether they were result of a fall, or the location of the fracture, or bone health parameters. Although the results support a belief that SGLT-2 inhibitors do not adversely affect bone health, “given limited information on bone health outcomes, further work is needed to validate this conclusion,” the authors wrote.
The authors did not disclose any funding and had no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: B-B Qian et al. Osteoporosis Int. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1007/s00198-020-05590-y.
The combination of sodium-glucose transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and metformin is not associated with an increase in fracture risk among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to a new meta-analysis of 25 randomized, controlled trials.
Researchers at The Second Clinical College of Dalian Medical University in Jiangsu, China, compared fracture risk associated with the metformin/SLGT2 combination to metformin alone as well as other T2D therapeutics, and found no differences in risk. The study was published online Aug. 11 in Osteoporosis International.
T2D is associated with an increased risk of fracture, though causative mechanisms remain uncertain. Some lines of evidence suggest multiple factors may contribute to fractures, including hyperglycemia, oxidative stress, toxic effects of advanced glycosylation end-products, altered insulin levels, and treatment-induced hypoglycemia, as well as an association between T2D and increased risk of falls.
Antidiabetes drugs can have positive or negative effects on bone. thiazolidinediones, insulin, and sulfonylureas may increase risk of fractures, while dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-2 (GLP-2) receptor agonists may be protective. Metformin may also reduce fracture risk.
SGLT-2 inhibitors interrupt glucose reabsorption in the kidney, leading to improved glycemic control. Other benefits include improved renal and cardiovascular outcomes, weight loss, and reduced blood pressure, liver fat, and serum uric acid levels.
These properties have made SGLT-2 inhibitors combined with metformin an important therapy for patients at high risk of atherosclerotic disease, or who have heart failure or chronic kidney disease.
But SGLT-2 inhibition increases osmotic diuresis, and this could alter the mineral balance within bone. Some studies also showed that SGLT-2 inhibitors led to changes in bone turnover markers, bone mineral density, and bone microarchitecture. Observational studies of the SGLT-2 inhibitor canagliflozin found associations with a higher rate of fracture risk in patients taking the drug.
Such studies carry the risk of confounding factors, so the researchers took advantage of the fact that many recent clinical trials have examined the impact of SGLT-2 inhibitors on T2D. They pooled data from 25 clinical trials with a total of 19,500 participants, 9,662 of whom received SGLT-2 inhibitors plus metformin; 9,838 received other active comparators.
The fracture rate was 0.91% in the SGLT-2 inhibitors/metformin group, and 0.80% among controls (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.71-1.32), with no heterogeneity. Metformin alone was not associated with a change in fracture rate (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.44-2.08), nor were other forms of diabetes control (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69-1.31).
There were some differences in fracture risk among SGLT-2 inhibitors when studied individually, though none differed significantly from controls. The highest risk was associated with the canagliflozin/metformin (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.66-7.27), followed by dapagliflozin/metformin (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.50-1.64), empagliflozin/metformin (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.59-1.50), and ertugliflozin/metformin (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.38-1.54).
There were no differences with respect to hip or lumbar spine fractures, or other fractures. The researchers found no differences in bone mineral density or bone turnover markers.
The meta-analysis is limited by the relatively short average follow-up in the included studies, which was 61 weeks. Bone damage may occur over longer time periods. Bone fractures were also not a prespecified adverse event in most included studies.
The studies also did not provide detailed information on the types of fractures experienced, such as whether they were result of a fall, or the location of the fracture, or bone health parameters. Although the results support a belief that SGLT-2 inhibitors do not adversely affect bone health, “given limited information on bone health outcomes, further work is needed to validate this conclusion,” the authors wrote.
The authors did not disclose any funding and had no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: B-B Qian et al. Osteoporosis Int. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1007/s00198-020-05590-y.
The combination of sodium-glucose transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and metformin is not associated with an increase in fracture risk among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), according to a new meta-analysis of 25 randomized, controlled trials.
Researchers at The Second Clinical College of Dalian Medical University in Jiangsu, China, compared fracture risk associated with the metformin/SLGT2 combination to metformin alone as well as other T2D therapeutics, and found no differences in risk. The study was published online Aug. 11 in Osteoporosis International.
T2D is associated with an increased risk of fracture, though causative mechanisms remain uncertain. Some lines of evidence suggest multiple factors may contribute to fractures, including hyperglycemia, oxidative stress, toxic effects of advanced glycosylation end-products, altered insulin levels, and treatment-induced hypoglycemia, as well as an association between T2D and increased risk of falls.
Antidiabetes drugs can have positive or negative effects on bone. thiazolidinediones, insulin, and sulfonylureas may increase risk of fractures, while dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-2 (GLP-2) receptor agonists may be protective. Metformin may also reduce fracture risk.
SGLT-2 inhibitors interrupt glucose reabsorption in the kidney, leading to improved glycemic control. Other benefits include improved renal and cardiovascular outcomes, weight loss, and reduced blood pressure, liver fat, and serum uric acid levels.
These properties have made SGLT-2 inhibitors combined with metformin an important therapy for patients at high risk of atherosclerotic disease, or who have heart failure or chronic kidney disease.
But SGLT-2 inhibition increases osmotic diuresis, and this could alter the mineral balance within bone. Some studies also showed that SGLT-2 inhibitors led to changes in bone turnover markers, bone mineral density, and bone microarchitecture. Observational studies of the SGLT-2 inhibitor canagliflozin found associations with a higher rate of fracture risk in patients taking the drug.
Such studies carry the risk of confounding factors, so the researchers took advantage of the fact that many recent clinical trials have examined the impact of SGLT-2 inhibitors on T2D. They pooled data from 25 clinical trials with a total of 19,500 participants, 9,662 of whom received SGLT-2 inhibitors plus metformin; 9,838 received other active comparators.
The fracture rate was 0.91% in the SGLT-2 inhibitors/metformin group, and 0.80% among controls (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.71-1.32), with no heterogeneity. Metformin alone was not associated with a change in fracture rate (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.44-2.08), nor were other forms of diabetes control (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69-1.31).
There were some differences in fracture risk among SGLT-2 inhibitors when studied individually, though none differed significantly from controls. The highest risk was associated with the canagliflozin/metformin (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.66-7.27), followed by dapagliflozin/metformin (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.50-1.64), empagliflozin/metformin (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.59-1.50), and ertugliflozin/metformin (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.38-1.54).
There were no differences with respect to hip or lumbar spine fractures, or other fractures. The researchers found no differences in bone mineral density or bone turnover markers.
The meta-analysis is limited by the relatively short average follow-up in the included studies, which was 61 weeks. Bone damage may occur over longer time periods. Bone fractures were also not a prespecified adverse event in most included studies.
The studies also did not provide detailed information on the types of fractures experienced, such as whether they were result of a fall, or the location of the fracture, or bone health parameters. Although the results support a belief that SGLT-2 inhibitors do not adversely affect bone health, “given limited information on bone health outcomes, further work is needed to validate this conclusion,” the authors wrote.
The authors did not disclose any funding and had no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: B-B Qian et al. Osteoporosis Int. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1007/s00198-020-05590-y.
FROM OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
Fetal movement education: Time to change the status quo
Every antepartum record, whether it is on paper or EMR, has a space asking whether the patient feels fetal movement at the visit. Every provider inherently knows that fetal movement is important and worth asking about at each visit. Yet the education for patients about fetal movement and when to alert a provider to changes is not currently standardized in the United States. There is no practice bulletin or guideline from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and, therefore, there is a wide variation in clinical practice. An Australian study found that 97% of women were asked about fetal movement, but only 62% reported formal education regarding fetal movement. More concerning, only 40% were advised to call immediately if concerned about fetal movement change. A quarter were told to call only if baby moved fewer than 10 times in an hour.1
We have a standardized approach to most aspects of prenatal care. We know what to do if the patient has contractions, or protein in their urine, or an increased blood pressure. Our management and education regarding fetal movement must be standardized as well. In this article I will go through the incorrect education that often is given and the data that do not support this. We need a similar care plan or model for fetal movement education in the United States.
Myth one: Kick counts
When education is done, kick counts are far and away what providers and nurses advise in the clinic and hospital triage when women present with complaint of decreased fetal movement. The standard approach to this is advising the patient to perform a kick count several times per day to check in on the baby and call if less than 10 kicks per hour. This is not bad advice as it may help create awareness for the mom about what is “normal” for her baby and may help her to “check in” on the baby when she is occupied at work or with older children. However, advising that a kick count should be done to reassure a patient about a concerning change in fetal movement is not supported in the literature. A meta-analysis in the February 2020 issue of the Green Journal found that advised kick count monitoring did not significantly reduce stillbirth risk.2 Research shows that most moms will get 10 kicks normally within an hour, but there are no data showing what percentage of moms with perceived decreased fetal movement also will get a “passing” result despite their concern. For example, take a patient who normally feels 50 movements in an hour and is not reassured by 10 movements in an hour, but because she is told that 10 movements is okay, she tries not to worry about the concerning change. Many mothers in the stillbirth community report “passing kick counts” in the days leading up to the diagnosis. We need to move away from kick count education to a much simpler plan. We must tell patients if they are worried about a concerning change in fetal movement, they should call their provider.
Myth 2: Fetuses slow down at the end of pregnancy
There is a very common myth that fetuses slow down at the end of pregnancy, especially once labor has started. A study in the Journal of Physiology continuously monitored term fetuses when mom was both awake and asleep. The study also looked at the effect on fetal heart rate and fetal activity based on different maternal positions. The study found the fetuses spent around 90% of the day with active movements and with reactive nonstress tests (NSTs).3 A 2019 study looking at fetal movement at term and preterm in third-trimester patients illustrated that fetal movement does not decrease in frequency or strength at term. It found that only 6% of patients noted decreased strength and 14% decreased frequency of movements at term. Furthermore, 59% reported an increase in strength, and nearly 39% reported an increase in frequency of fetal movements at term.4 We must educate patients that a change in frequency or strength of movements is not normal or expected, and they must call if concerned about a change.
Myth 3: Try juice, ice water, or food before coming in for evaluation
A common set of advice when a patient calls with a complaint of decreased fetal movement is to suggest a meal or something sugary, although there is little or no evidence to support this. A randomized controlled trial found maternal perception of increased fetal movement was similar among the two groups. Giving something sugary at NST also was not shown in this study to improve reactivity.5 Another randomized, double placebo blind study was done to answer the question of whether glucose via IV helped improve fetal movements and decreased the need for admission for induction or further monitoring. In this study, no difference in outcome is found.6
When a patient calls with decreased fetal movement, advice should be to come and be evaluated, not recommendation of measures like ice water, orange juice, or sugary meal because it is not supported by the literature. This incorrect message also may further the false impression that a baby who is not moving is most likely sleeping or is simply in need of sugar, not that the baby may be at risk for impending stillbirth. The Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have fetal movement protocol that both discourage this advice and encourage immediate evaluation of patients with complaint of concerning fetal movement change.7,8
Myth 4: An increase in fetal movement is not of concern
I used to believe that increased fetal movement is never of concern. However, the STARS study illustrated that a concerning increase in fetal movement often is noted just before the diagnosis of stillbirth. A single episode of excessively vigorous activity which often is described as frantic or crazy is associated with an odds ratio for stillbirth of 4.3. In the study, 30% of cases reported this, compared with 7% of controls.9 In our practice, we manage mothers who call with this concern the same way as a decreased fetal movement complaint, and bring the mother in immediately for evaluation.
Myth 5: Patients all know that a concerning change in fetal movement is a risk factor for stillbirth
Decreased fetal movement has been associated with an increased OR for stillbirth of 4.51.10 However, patients often do not know of this association. A study in the United States of providers and stillbirth families showed fear of anxiety kept providers from talking about stillbirth and that it still happens. Because of this patients were completely surprised by the diagnosis.11 We tell patients that stillbirth still happens because research by Dr Suzanne Pullen found that 77% of families said they never worried their baby could die outside of the first trimester. Our patients have received this information without increased anxiety and are very appreciative and reassured about the education and protocol (based on the U.K. Saving Babies Lives Care Bundle Version 2) that we have implemented in our practice.
Fact: Fetal movement education guidelines exist and are easy to implement
The practice I am a partner at has been using a formalized method for educating patients about fetal movement over the past year. As mentioned earlier the U.K. and Australia have formal fetal movement education and management guidelines.7,8 Both protocols encourage formal education around 20-24 weeks and education for the patient to call immediately with concerns; the patient should be evaluated within 2 hours of the complaint. The formal education we provide is quite simple. The Star Legacy Foundation (United States) and Still Aware (Australia) have created a simple card to educate patients.
These patient-centric materials were devised from the results of the case/control cohort STARS study by Heazell et al. The STARS study demonstrated that patient report of reduced fetal movement in the 2 weeks prior to loss was associated with an OR of 12.9 for stillbirth, that decreased strength of fetal movement was associated with stillbirth OR of 2.83, and that decreased night time activity was strongly associated with impending stillbirth (74% of cases felt their fetuses died at night).12 This card also addresses sleep position data, supported by a 2018 meta-analysis in the journal Sleep Medicine. The study identified an OR for stillbirth of 2.45 for supine sleepers with LGA or average sized babies. Furthermore, if the baby was SGA and the mother slept supine, the OR for stillbirth increased to 15.66.13
Conclusions
When I think about the patients I have cared for who have presented with a stillborn baby, I think often that they usually presented for a complaint other than decreased fetal movement such as labor check or routine prenatal visit. When asked when they last felt fetal movement they will often say days before. This does not need to happen. Protocols in Norway for fetal movement education have shown that patients call sooner with decreased fetal movement when they have received a formal education.14
Not all stillbirth can be prevented but proper education about fetal movement and not perpetuating dangerous myths about fetal movement, may keep presentations like this from happening. I hope we may soon have a formal protocol for fetal movement education, but until then, I hope some will take these educational tips to heart.
Dr. Heather Florescue is an ob.gyn. in private practice at Women Gynecology and Childbirth Associates in Rochester, NY. She delivers babies at Highland Hospital in Rochester. She has no relevant financial disclosures.
References
1. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Oct;52(5):445-9.
2. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):453-62.
3. J Physiol. 2017 Feb 15;595(4):1213-21.
4. PLOS One. 2019 Jun 12. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217583.
5. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013 Jun;26(9):915-9.
6. J Perinatol. 2016 Aug;36(8):598-600.
7. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Aug;58(4):463-8.
8. Reduced fetal movements: Green top #57, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
9. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2017. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1555-6.
10. BMJ Open. 2018. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020031.
11. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2012. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-137.
12. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2015. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0602-4.
13. EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.03.014.
14. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2009. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-9-32.
Every antepartum record, whether it is on paper or EMR, has a space asking whether the patient feels fetal movement at the visit. Every provider inherently knows that fetal movement is important and worth asking about at each visit. Yet the education for patients about fetal movement and when to alert a provider to changes is not currently standardized in the United States. There is no practice bulletin or guideline from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and, therefore, there is a wide variation in clinical practice. An Australian study found that 97% of women were asked about fetal movement, but only 62% reported formal education regarding fetal movement. More concerning, only 40% were advised to call immediately if concerned about fetal movement change. A quarter were told to call only if baby moved fewer than 10 times in an hour.1
We have a standardized approach to most aspects of prenatal care. We know what to do if the patient has contractions, or protein in their urine, or an increased blood pressure. Our management and education regarding fetal movement must be standardized as well. In this article I will go through the incorrect education that often is given and the data that do not support this. We need a similar care plan or model for fetal movement education in the United States.
Myth one: Kick counts
When education is done, kick counts are far and away what providers and nurses advise in the clinic and hospital triage when women present with complaint of decreased fetal movement. The standard approach to this is advising the patient to perform a kick count several times per day to check in on the baby and call if less than 10 kicks per hour. This is not bad advice as it may help create awareness for the mom about what is “normal” for her baby and may help her to “check in” on the baby when she is occupied at work or with older children. However, advising that a kick count should be done to reassure a patient about a concerning change in fetal movement is not supported in the literature. A meta-analysis in the February 2020 issue of the Green Journal found that advised kick count monitoring did not significantly reduce stillbirth risk.2 Research shows that most moms will get 10 kicks normally within an hour, but there are no data showing what percentage of moms with perceived decreased fetal movement also will get a “passing” result despite their concern. For example, take a patient who normally feels 50 movements in an hour and is not reassured by 10 movements in an hour, but because she is told that 10 movements is okay, she tries not to worry about the concerning change. Many mothers in the stillbirth community report “passing kick counts” in the days leading up to the diagnosis. We need to move away from kick count education to a much simpler plan. We must tell patients if they are worried about a concerning change in fetal movement, they should call their provider.
Myth 2: Fetuses slow down at the end of pregnancy
There is a very common myth that fetuses slow down at the end of pregnancy, especially once labor has started. A study in the Journal of Physiology continuously monitored term fetuses when mom was both awake and asleep. The study also looked at the effect on fetal heart rate and fetal activity based on different maternal positions. The study found the fetuses spent around 90% of the day with active movements and with reactive nonstress tests (NSTs).3 A 2019 study looking at fetal movement at term and preterm in third-trimester patients illustrated that fetal movement does not decrease in frequency or strength at term. It found that only 6% of patients noted decreased strength and 14% decreased frequency of movements at term. Furthermore, 59% reported an increase in strength, and nearly 39% reported an increase in frequency of fetal movements at term.4 We must educate patients that a change in frequency or strength of movements is not normal or expected, and they must call if concerned about a change.
Myth 3: Try juice, ice water, or food before coming in for evaluation
A common set of advice when a patient calls with a complaint of decreased fetal movement is to suggest a meal or something sugary, although there is little or no evidence to support this. A randomized controlled trial found maternal perception of increased fetal movement was similar among the two groups. Giving something sugary at NST also was not shown in this study to improve reactivity.5 Another randomized, double placebo blind study was done to answer the question of whether glucose via IV helped improve fetal movements and decreased the need for admission for induction or further monitoring. In this study, no difference in outcome is found.6
When a patient calls with decreased fetal movement, advice should be to come and be evaluated, not recommendation of measures like ice water, orange juice, or sugary meal because it is not supported by the literature. This incorrect message also may further the false impression that a baby who is not moving is most likely sleeping or is simply in need of sugar, not that the baby may be at risk for impending stillbirth. The Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have fetal movement protocol that both discourage this advice and encourage immediate evaluation of patients with complaint of concerning fetal movement change.7,8
Myth 4: An increase in fetal movement is not of concern
I used to believe that increased fetal movement is never of concern. However, the STARS study illustrated that a concerning increase in fetal movement often is noted just before the diagnosis of stillbirth. A single episode of excessively vigorous activity which often is described as frantic or crazy is associated with an odds ratio for stillbirth of 4.3. In the study, 30% of cases reported this, compared with 7% of controls.9 In our practice, we manage mothers who call with this concern the same way as a decreased fetal movement complaint, and bring the mother in immediately for evaluation.
Myth 5: Patients all know that a concerning change in fetal movement is a risk factor for stillbirth
Decreased fetal movement has been associated with an increased OR for stillbirth of 4.51.10 However, patients often do not know of this association. A study in the United States of providers and stillbirth families showed fear of anxiety kept providers from talking about stillbirth and that it still happens. Because of this patients were completely surprised by the diagnosis.11 We tell patients that stillbirth still happens because research by Dr Suzanne Pullen found that 77% of families said they never worried their baby could die outside of the first trimester. Our patients have received this information without increased anxiety and are very appreciative and reassured about the education and protocol (based on the U.K. Saving Babies Lives Care Bundle Version 2) that we have implemented in our practice.
Fact: Fetal movement education guidelines exist and are easy to implement
The practice I am a partner at has been using a formalized method for educating patients about fetal movement over the past year. As mentioned earlier the U.K. and Australia have formal fetal movement education and management guidelines.7,8 Both protocols encourage formal education around 20-24 weeks and education for the patient to call immediately with concerns; the patient should be evaluated within 2 hours of the complaint. The formal education we provide is quite simple. The Star Legacy Foundation (United States) and Still Aware (Australia) have created a simple card to educate patients.
These patient-centric materials were devised from the results of the case/control cohort STARS study by Heazell et al. The STARS study demonstrated that patient report of reduced fetal movement in the 2 weeks prior to loss was associated with an OR of 12.9 for stillbirth, that decreased strength of fetal movement was associated with stillbirth OR of 2.83, and that decreased night time activity was strongly associated with impending stillbirth (74% of cases felt their fetuses died at night).12 This card also addresses sleep position data, supported by a 2018 meta-analysis in the journal Sleep Medicine. The study identified an OR for stillbirth of 2.45 for supine sleepers with LGA or average sized babies. Furthermore, if the baby was SGA and the mother slept supine, the OR for stillbirth increased to 15.66.13
Conclusions
When I think about the patients I have cared for who have presented with a stillborn baby, I think often that they usually presented for a complaint other than decreased fetal movement such as labor check or routine prenatal visit. When asked when they last felt fetal movement they will often say days before. This does not need to happen. Protocols in Norway for fetal movement education have shown that patients call sooner with decreased fetal movement when they have received a formal education.14
Not all stillbirth can be prevented but proper education about fetal movement and not perpetuating dangerous myths about fetal movement, may keep presentations like this from happening. I hope we may soon have a formal protocol for fetal movement education, but until then, I hope some will take these educational tips to heart.
Dr. Heather Florescue is an ob.gyn. in private practice at Women Gynecology and Childbirth Associates in Rochester, NY. She delivers babies at Highland Hospital in Rochester. She has no relevant financial disclosures.
References
1. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Oct;52(5):445-9.
2. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):453-62.
3. J Physiol. 2017 Feb 15;595(4):1213-21.
4. PLOS One. 2019 Jun 12. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217583.
5. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013 Jun;26(9):915-9.
6. J Perinatol. 2016 Aug;36(8):598-600.
7. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Aug;58(4):463-8.
8. Reduced fetal movements: Green top #57, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
9. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2017. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1555-6.
10. BMJ Open. 2018. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020031.
11. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2012. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-137.
12. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2015. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0602-4.
13. EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.03.014.
14. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2009. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-9-32.
Every antepartum record, whether it is on paper or EMR, has a space asking whether the patient feels fetal movement at the visit. Every provider inherently knows that fetal movement is important and worth asking about at each visit. Yet the education for patients about fetal movement and when to alert a provider to changes is not currently standardized in the United States. There is no practice bulletin or guideline from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and, therefore, there is a wide variation in clinical practice. An Australian study found that 97% of women were asked about fetal movement, but only 62% reported formal education regarding fetal movement. More concerning, only 40% were advised to call immediately if concerned about fetal movement change. A quarter were told to call only if baby moved fewer than 10 times in an hour.1
We have a standardized approach to most aspects of prenatal care. We know what to do if the patient has contractions, or protein in their urine, or an increased blood pressure. Our management and education regarding fetal movement must be standardized as well. In this article I will go through the incorrect education that often is given and the data that do not support this. We need a similar care plan or model for fetal movement education in the United States.
Myth one: Kick counts
When education is done, kick counts are far and away what providers and nurses advise in the clinic and hospital triage when women present with complaint of decreased fetal movement. The standard approach to this is advising the patient to perform a kick count several times per day to check in on the baby and call if less than 10 kicks per hour. This is not bad advice as it may help create awareness for the mom about what is “normal” for her baby and may help her to “check in” on the baby when she is occupied at work or with older children. However, advising that a kick count should be done to reassure a patient about a concerning change in fetal movement is not supported in the literature. A meta-analysis in the February 2020 issue of the Green Journal found that advised kick count monitoring did not significantly reduce stillbirth risk.2 Research shows that most moms will get 10 kicks normally within an hour, but there are no data showing what percentage of moms with perceived decreased fetal movement also will get a “passing” result despite their concern. For example, take a patient who normally feels 50 movements in an hour and is not reassured by 10 movements in an hour, but because she is told that 10 movements is okay, she tries not to worry about the concerning change. Many mothers in the stillbirth community report “passing kick counts” in the days leading up to the diagnosis. We need to move away from kick count education to a much simpler plan. We must tell patients if they are worried about a concerning change in fetal movement, they should call their provider.
Myth 2: Fetuses slow down at the end of pregnancy
There is a very common myth that fetuses slow down at the end of pregnancy, especially once labor has started. A study in the Journal of Physiology continuously monitored term fetuses when mom was both awake and asleep. The study also looked at the effect on fetal heart rate and fetal activity based on different maternal positions. The study found the fetuses spent around 90% of the day with active movements and with reactive nonstress tests (NSTs).3 A 2019 study looking at fetal movement at term and preterm in third-trimester patients illustrated that fetal movement does not decrease in frequency or strength at term. It found that only 6% of patients noted decreased strength and 14% decreased frequency of movements at term. Furthermore, 59% reported an increase in strength, and nearly 39% reported an increase in frequency of fetal movements at term.4 We must educate patients that a change in frequency or strength of movements is not normal or expected, and they must call if concerned about a change.
Myth 3: Try juice, ice water, or food before coming in for evaluation
A common set of advice when a patient calls with a complaint of decreased fetal movement is to suggest a meal or something sugary, although there is little or no evidence to support this. A randomized controlled trial found maternal perception of increased fetal movement was similar among the two groups. Giving something sugary at NST also was not shown in this study to improve reactivity.5 Another randomized, double placebo blind study was done to answer the question of whether glucose via IV helped improve fetal movements and decreased the need for admission for induction or further monitoring. In this study, no difference in outcome is found.6
When a patient calls with decreased fetal movement, advice should be to come and be evaluated, not recommendation of measures like ice water, orange juice, or sugary meal because it is not supported by the literature. This incorrect message also may further the false impression that a baby who is not moving is most likely sleeping or is simply in need of sugar, not that the baby may be at risk for impending stillbirth. The Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have fetal movement protocol that both discourage this advice and encourage immediate evaluation of patients with complaint of concerning fetal movement change.7,8
Myth 4: An increase in fetal movement is not of concern
I used to believe that increased fetal movement is never of concern. However, the STARS study illustrated that a concerning increase in fetal movement often is noted just before the diagnosis of stillbirth. A single episode of excessively vigorous activity which often is described as frantic or crazy is associated with an odds ratio for stillbirth of 4.3. In the study, 30% of cases reported this, compared with 7% of controls.9 In our practice, we manage mothers who call with this concern the same way as a decreased fetal movement complaint, and bring the mother in immediately for evaluation.
Myth 5: Patients all know that a concerning change in fetal movement is a risk factor for stillbirth
Decreased fetal movement has been associated with an increased OR for stillbirth of 4.51.10 However, patients often do not know of this association. A study in the United States of providers and stillbirth families showed fear of anxiety kept providers from talking about stillbirth and that it still happens. Because of this patients were completely surprised by the diagnosis.11 We tell patients that stillbirth still happens because research by Dr Suzanne Pullen found that 77% of families said they never worried their baby could die outside of the first trimester. Our patients have received this information without increased anxiety and are very appreciative and reassured about the education and protocol (based on the U.K. Saving Babies Lives Care Bundle Version 2) that we have implemented in our practice.
Fact: Fetal movement education guidelines exist and are easy to implement
The practice I am a partner at has been using a formalized method for educating patients about fetal movement over the past year. As mentioned earlier the U.K. and Australia have formal fetal movement education and management guidelines.7,8 Both protocols encourage formal education around 20-24 weeks and education for the patient to call immediately with concerns; the patient should be evaluated within 2 hours of the complaint. The formal education we provide is quite simple. The Star Legacy Foundation (United States) and Still Aware (Australia) have created a simple card to educate patients.
These patient-centric materials were devised from the results of the case/control cohort STARS study by Heazell et al. The STARS study demonstrated that patient report of reduced fetal movement in the 2 weeks prior to loss was associated with an OR of 12.9 for stillbirth, that decreased strength of fetal movement was associated with stillbirth OR of 2.83, and that decreased night time activity was strongly associated with impending stillbirth (74% of cases felt their fetuses died at night).12 This card also addresses sleep position data, supported by a 2018 meta-analysis in the journal Sleep Medicine. The study identified an OR for stillbirth of 2.45 for supine sleepers with LGA or average sized babies. Furthermore, if the baby was SGA and the mother slept supine, the OR for stillbirth increased to 15.66.13
Conclusions
When I think about the patients I have cared for who have presented with a stillborn baby, I think often that they usually presented for a complaint other than decreased fetal movement such as labor check or routine prenatal visit. When asked when they last felt fetal movement they will often say days before. This does not need to happen. Protocols in Norway for fetal movement education have shown that patients call sooner with decreased fetal movement when they have received a formal education.14
Not all stillbirth can be prevented but proper education about fetal movement and not perpetuating dangerous myths about fetal movement, may keep presentations like this from happening. I hope we may soon have a formal protocol for fetal movement education, but until then, I hope some will take these educational tips to heart.
Dr. Heather Florescue is an ob.gyn. in private practice at Women Gynecology and Childbirth Associates in Rochester, NY. She delivers babies at Highland Hospital in Rochester. She has no relevant financial disclosures.
References
1. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Oct;52(5):445-9.
2. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):453-62.
3. J Physiol. 2017 Feb 15;595(4):1213-21.
4. PLOS One. 2019 Jun 12. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217583.
5. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013 Jun;26(9):915-9.
6. J Perinatol. 2016 Aug;36(8):598-600.
7. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Aug;58(4):463-8.
8. Reduced fetal movements: Green top #57, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
9. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2017. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1555-6.
10. BMJ Open. 2018. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020031.
11. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2012. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-137.
12. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2015. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0602-4.
13. EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.03.014.
14. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2009. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-9-32.
Health disparity: Race, mortality, and infants of teenage mothers
according to a new analysis from the National Center for Health Statistics.
In 2017-2018, overall mortality rates were 12.5 per 100,000 live births for infants born to Black mothers aged 15-19 years, 8.4 per 100,000 for infants born to White teenagers, and 6.5 per 100,000 for those born to Hispanic teens, Ashley M. Woodall, MPH, and Anne K. Driscoll, PhD, of the NCHS said in a data brief.
Looking at the five leading causes of those deaths shows that deaths of Black infants were the highest by significant margins in four, although, when it comes to “disorders related to short gestation and low birth weight,” significant may be an understatement.
The rate of preterm/low-birth-weight deaths for white infants in 2017-2018 was 119 per 100,000 live births; for Hispanic infants it was 94 per 100,000. Among infants born to Black teenagers, however, it was 284 deaths per 100,000, they reported based on data from the National Vital Statistics System’s linked birth/infant death file.
The numbers for congenital malformations and accidents were closer but still significantly different, and with each of the three most common causes, the rates for infants of Hispanic mothers also were significantly lower than those of White infants, the researchers said.
The situation changes for mortality-cause No. 4, sudden infant death syndrome, which was significantly more common among infants born to White teenagers, with a rate of 91 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared with either black (77) or Hispanic (44) infants, Ms. Woodall and Dr. Driscoll said.
Infants born to Black teens had the highest death rate again (68 per 100,000) for maternal complications of pregnancy, the fifth-leading cause of mortality, but for the first time Hispanic infants had a higher rate (36) than did those of White teenagers (29), they reported.
according to a new analysis from the National Center for Health Statistics.
In 2017-2018, overall mortality rates were 12.5 per 100,000 live births for infants born to Black mothers aged 15-19 years, 8.4 per 100,000 for infants born to White teenagers, and 6.5 per 100,000 for those born to Hispanic teens, Ashley M. Woodall, MPH, and Anne K. Driscoll, PhD, of the NCHS said in a data brief.
Looking at the five leading causes of those deaths shows that deaths of Black infants were the highest by significant margins in four, although, when it comes to “disorders related to short gestation and low birth weight,” significant may be an understatement.
The rate of preterm/low-birth-weight deaths for white infants in 2017-2018 was 119 per 100,000 live births; for Hispanic infants it was 94 per 100,000. Among infants born to Black teenagers, however, it was 284 deaths per 100,000, they reported based on data from the National Vital Statistics System’s linked birth/infant death file.
The numbers for congenital malformations and accidents were closer but still significantly different, and with each of the three most common causes, the rates for infants of Hispanic mothers also were significantly lower than those of White infants, the researchers said.
The situation changes for mortality-cause No. 4, sudden infant death syndrome, which was significantly more common among infants born to White teenagers, with a rate of 91 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared with either black (77) or Hispanic (44) infants, Ms. Woodall and Dr. Driscoll said.
Infants born to Black teens had the highest death rate again (68 per 100,000) for maternal complications of pregnancy, the fifth-leading cause of mortality, but for the first time Hispanic infants had a higher rate (36) than did those of White teenagers (29), they reported.
according to a new analysis from the National Center for Health Statistics.
In 2017-2018, overall mortality rates were 12.5 per 100,000 live births for infants born to Black mothers aged 15-19 years, 8.4 per 100,000 for infants born to White teenagers, and 6.5 per 100,000 for those born to Hispanic teens, Ashley M. Woodall, MPH, and Anne K. Driscoll, PhD, of the NCHS said in a data brief.
Looking at the five leading causes of those deaths shows that deaths of Black infants were the highest by significant margins in four, although, when it comes to “disorders related to short gestation and low birth weight,” significant may be an understatement.
The rate of preterm/low-birth-weight deaths for white infants in 2017-2018 was 119 per 100,000 live births; for Hispanic infants it was 94 per 100,000. Among infants born to Black teenagers, however, it was 284 deaths per 100,000, they reported based on data from the National Vital Statistics System’s linked birth/infant death file.
The numbers for congenital malformations and accidents were closer but still significantly different, and with each of the three most common causes, the rates for infants of Hispanic mothers also were significantly lower than those of White infants, the researchers said.
The situation changes for mortality-cause No. 4, sudden infant death syndrome, which was significantly more common among infants born to White teenagers, with a rate of 91 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared with either black (77) or Hispanic (44) infants, Ms. Woodall and Dr. Driscoll said.
Infants born to Black teens had the highest death rate again (68 per 100,000) for maternal complications of pregnancy, the fifth-leading cause of mortality, but for the first time Hispanic infants had a higher rate (36) than did those of White teenagers (29), they reported.