User login
High-impact training can build bone in older women
Older adults, particularly postmenopausal women, are often advised to pursue low-impact, low-intensity exercise as a way to preserve joint health, but that approach might actually contribute to a decline in bone mineral density, researchers report.
Concerns about falls and fracture risk have led many clinicians to advise against higher-impact activities, like jumping, but that is exactly the type of activity that improves bone density and physical function, said Belinda Beck, PhD, professor at the Griffith University School of Allied Health Sciences in Southport, Australia.
“There has always been a quandary in terms of pursuing research on this,” she said in an interview. “We know from animal studies that bone only responds to high-intensity activity, but we worry about advising that for people with low bone mass, so instead we give them medications.”
“But not everyone likes to go on meds, they’re not 100% effective, and they’re not free of side effects,” said Beck, who is also the owner and director of The Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia.
In 2014, to assess whether high-intensity resistance and impact training (HiRIT) was a safe and effective way to improve bone mass, Beck and her colleagues conducted the LIFTMOR study of 101 postmenopausal women. The researchers showed that bone mineral density in the lumbar spine and femoral neck regions and functional performance measures were significantly better in the 49 participants randomized to HiRIT for 8 months than in the 52 randomized to low-intensity training.
Three years after the completion of LIFTMOR, the researchers looked at bone mineral density in 23 women from the HiRIT group in their retrospective observational study, the results of which were presented at the virtual American College of Sports Medicine 2020 Annual Meeting.
Ongoing gains were significantly better for the seven participants who continued with HiRIT (at least 25% compliance) than for the 16 who did not when looking at both bone mineral density of the lumbar spine (8.63% vs. 2.18%; P = .042) and femoral neck (3.67% vs. 2.85%; P = 0.14).
However, the women who discontinued HiRIT after 8 months maintained the gains in bone mineral density that they had achieved 3 years earlier.
Functional outcomes in the women who continued HiRIT were better than those in the women who did not, but the differences were not significant.
“The takeaway here is that this type of exercise appears to be a highly effective therapy to reduce risk of osteoporotic fracture, since it improves bone mass,” Beck said.
Jump more, lose less bone density
Given the widespread reluctance to suggest HiRIT-type activity to those with low bone mass, this research is significant, said Vanessa Yingling, PhD, from the Department of Kinesiology at California State University, East Bay.
“Once women hit 60, they’re somehow regarded as frail, but that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when we take this kinder, gentler approach to exercise,” Yingling said in an interview. “Building bone density in older adults is important, but maintaining current bone density is just as crucial. Without high-impact activity, we are likely to see decelerating density at a faster rate.”
The other key to the recent research is the functional testing, Yingling added. In addition to bone density measures, high-intensity activity can improve mobility and muscle strength, as the study noted.
This type of activity can be done in shorter bursts, making these workouts more efficient, she explained. For example, a Tabata high-intensity interval training session usually takes about 10 minutes, warm-up and cool-down included.
“A HiRIT workout even once or twice a week would likely improve function, strength, and bone density maintenance,” Beck said. “The result of that would be better fall prevention and potentially less medication usage for BMD issues.”
Both men and women can benefit from a HiRIT workout, Beck and Yingling said. Initially, supervision by a knowledgeable trainer or physical therapist is ideal, they added.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Older adults, particularly postmenopausal women, are often advised to pursue low-impact, low-intensity exercise as a way to preserve joint health, but that approach might actually contribute to a decline in bone mineral density, researchers report.
Concerns about falls and fracture risk have led many clinicians to advise against higher-impact activities, like jumping, but that is exactly the type of activity that improves bone density and physical function, said Belinda Beck, PhD, professor at the Griffith University School of Allied Health Sciences in Southport, Australia.
“There has always been a quandary in terms of pursuing research on this,” she said in an interview. “We know from animal studies that bone only responds to high-intensity activity, but we worry about advising that for people with low bone mass, so instead we give them medications.”
“But not everyone likes to go on meds, they’re not 100% effective, and they’re not free of side effects,” said Beck, who is also the owner and director of The Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia.
In 2014, to assess whether high-intensity resistance and impact training (HiRIT) was a safe and effective way to improve bone mass, Beck and her colleagues conducted the LIFTMOR study of 101 postmenopausal women. The researchers showed that bone mineral density in the lumbar spine and femoral neck regions and functional performance measures were significantly better in the 49 participants randomized to HiRIT for 8 months than in the 52 randomized to low-intensity training.
Three years after the completion of LIFTMOR, the researchers looked at bone mineral density in 23 women from the HiRIT group in their retrospective observational study, the results of which were presented at the virtual American College of Sports Medicine 2020 Annual Meeting.
Ongoing gains were significantly better for the seven participants who continued with HiRIT (at least 25% compliance) than for the 16 who did not when looking at both bone mineral density of the lumbar spine (8.63% vs. 2.18%; P = .042) and femoral neck (3.67% vs. 2.85%; P = 0.14).
However, the women who discontinued HiRIT after 8 months maintained the gains in bone mineral density that they had achieved 3 years earlier.
Functional outcomes in the women who continued HiRIT were better than those in the women who did not, but the differences were not significant.
“The takeaway here is that this type of exercise appears to be a highly effective therapy to reduce risk of osteoporotic fracture, since it improves bone mass,” Beck said.
Jump more, lose less bone density
Given the widespread reluctance to suggest HiRIT-type activity to those with low bone mass, this research is significant, said Vanessa Yingling, PhD, from the Department of Kinesiology at California State University, East Bay.
“Once women hit 60, they’re somehow regarded as frail, but that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when we take this kinder, gentler approach to exercise,” Yingling said in an interview. “Building bone density in older adults is important, but maintaining current bone density is just as crucial. Without high-impact activity, we are likely to see decelerating density at a faster rate.”
The other key to the recent research is the functional testing, Yingling added. In addition to bone density measures, high-intensity activity can improve mobility and muscle strength, as the study noted.
This type of activity can be done in shorter bursts, making these workouts more efficient, she explained. For example, a Tabata high-intensity interval training session usually takes about 10 minutes, warm-up and cool-down included.
“A HiRIT workout even once or twice a week would likely improve function, strength, and bone density maintenance,” Beck said. “The result of that would be better fall prevention and potentially less medication usage for BMD issues.”
Both men and women can benefit from a HiRIT workout, Beck and Yingling said. Initially, supervision by a knowledgeable trainer or physical therapist is ideal, they added.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Older adults, particularly postmenopausal women, are often advised to pursue low-impact, low-intensity exercise as a way to preserve joint health, but that approach might actually contribute to a decline in bone mineral density, researchers report.
Concerns about falls and fracture risk have led many clinicians to advise against higher-impact activities, like jumping, but that is exactly the type of activity that improves bone density and physical function, said Belinda Beck, PhD, professor at the Griffith University School of Allied Health Sciences in Southport, Australia.
“There has always been a quandary in terms of pursuing research on this,” she said in an interview. “We know from animal studies that bone only responds to high-intensity activity, but we worry about advising that for people with low bone mass, so instead we give them medications.”
“But not everyone likes to go on meds, they’re not 100% effective, and they’re not free of side effects,” said Beck, who is also the owner and director of The Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia.
In 2014, to assess whether high-intensity resistance and impact training (HiRIT) was a safe and effective way to improve bone mass, Beck and her colleagues conducted the LIFTMOR study of 101 postmenopausal women. The researchers showed that bone mineral density in the lumbar spine and femoral neck regions and functional performance measures were significantly better in the 49 participants randomized to HiRIT for 8 months than in the 52 randomized to low-intensity training.
Three years after the completion of LIFTMOR, the researchers looked at bone mineral density in 23 women from the HiRIT group in their retrospective observational study, the results of which were presented at the virtual American College of Sports Medicine 2020 Annual Meeting.
Ongoing gains were significantly better for the seven participants who continued with HiRIT (at least 25% compliance) than for the 16 who did not when looking at both bone mineral density of the lumbar spine (8.63% vs. 2.18%; P = .042) and femoral neck (3.67% vs. 2.85%; P = 0.14).
However, the women who discontinued HiRIT after 8 months maintained the gains in bone mineral density that they had achieved 3 years earlier.
Functional outcomes in the women who continued HiRIT were better than those in the women who did not, but the differences were not significant.
“The takeaway here is that this type of exercise appears to be a highly effective therapy to reduce risk of osteoporotic fracture, since it improves bone mass,” Beck said.
Jump more, lose less bone density
Given the widespread reluctance to suggest HiRIT-type activity to those with low bone mass, this research is significant, said Vanessa Yingling, PhD, from the Department of Kinesiology at California State University, East Bay.
“Once women hit 60, they’re somehow regarded as frail, but that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when we take this kinder, gentler approach to exercise,” Yingling said in an interview. “Building bone density in older adults is important, but maintaining current bone density is just as crucial. Without high-impact activity, we are likely to see decelerating density at a faster rate.”
The other key to the recent research is the functional testing, Yingling added. In addition to bone density measures, high-intensity activity can improve mobility and muscle strength, as the study noted.
This type of activity can be done in shorter bursts, making these workouts more efficient, she explained. For example, a Tabata high-intensity interval training session usually takes about 10 minutes, warm-up and cool-down included.
“A HiRIT workout even once or twice a week would likely improve function, strength, and bone density maintenance,” Beck said. “The result of that would be better fall prevention and potentially less medication usage for BMD issues.”
Both men and women can benefit from a HiRIT workout, Beck and Yingling said. Initially, supervision by a knowledgeable trainer or physical therapist is ideal, they added.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pregnant women at greater risk for severe COVID-19, CDC says
Pregnant women may be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness, according to a new report published online June 26 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Among reproductive-aged women (15-44 years) infected with SARS-CoV-2, Pregnant women were 5.4 times more likely to be hospitalized, 1.5 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU, and 1.7 times more likely to need mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for age, underlying conditions, and race/ethnicity.
Furthermore, Hispanic and non-Hispanic black pregnant women appear to be disproportionately impacted by the infection.
Sascha Ellington, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Infant Linked Outcomes Team, and colleagues said that preventing COVID-19 infection in pregnant women should be a priority and any potential barriers to compliance with preventive measures need to be removed.
“During pregnancy, women experience immunologic and physiologic changes that could increase their risk for more severe illness from respiratory infections,” they wrote.
As of June 7, a total of 8,207 cases of COVID-19 in pregnant women were reported to the CDC, approximately 9% of COVID-19 cases among reproductive-aged women with known pregnancy status. The authors compared outcomes in these pregnant patients with those in 83,205 nonpregnant women with COVID-19. There was a substantially greater proportion of hospital admissions among pregnant patients (2,587; 31.5%) compared with nonpregnant patients (4,840; 5.8%) with COVID-19.
The authors cautioned that there were no data to differentiate between hospitalizations for COVID-19–related problems as opposed to those arising from pregnancy, including delivery.
For other severity measures, ICU admissions were reported for 1.5% of pregnant women compared with 0.9% for their nonpregnant counterparts, whereas mechanical ventilation was required for 0.5% compared with 0.3%, respectively. Mortality was identical, affecting 0.2% in both groups, with 16 deaths in pregnant patients with COVID-19 and 208 in nonpregnant patients.
Age had an impact as well, with hospitalization more frequent among those aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24, regardless of pregnancy status. When stratified by race/ethnicity, ICU admission was most frequently reported among pregnant women who were of non-Hispanic Asian lineage: 3.5% compared with 1.5% in all pregnant women.
Among pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reporting race/ethnicity, 46% were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 23% were white, whereas among women who gave birth in 2019, 24% were Hispanic, 15% were black, and 51% were white. “Although data on race/ethnicity were missing for 20% of pregnant women in this study, these findings suggest that pregnant women who are Hispanic and black might be disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy,” the authors wrote.
They noted that in a recent meta-analysis of influenza, pregnancy was similarly associated with a sevenfold risk for hospitalization, but a lower risk for ICU admission and no increased risk for death. A recent study suggested that COVID-19 severity during pregnancy may be lower than in other respiratory infections such as H1N1.
ACOG responds
In a response to the CDC findings, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advises calm, noting that the risk of needing the severity-associated interventions in the CDC report remains low and pregnant COVID-19 patients do not appear to have a greater risk for mortality.
Nevertheless, ACOG is reviewing all its COVID-19–related clinical and patient materials and “will make any necessary revisions to recommendations.”
In the meantime, the college advises clinicians to alert patients to the potential increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness during pregnancy. They should also stress to pregnant women and their families the need for precautions to prevent infection, paying particular attention to measures to protect those with greater occupational exposure to the virus.
ACOG also criticized the exclusion of pregnant and lactating women from clinical trials of potential coronavirus vaccines, noting that the new CDC findings underscore the importance of prioritizing pregnant patients to receive coronavirus vaccination when it becomes available.
“ACOG again urges the federal government to use its resources to ensure the safe inclusion of pregnant and lactating patients, including patients of color, in trials for vaccines and therapeutics to ensure that all populations are included in the search for ways to prevent and treat COVID-19,” the statement reads.
The CDC authors said that their report also highlights the need for more complete data to fully understand the risk for severe illness in pregnant women. To address these gaps, the CDC is collaborating with health departments in COVID-19 pregnancy surveillance for the reporting of outcomes in pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.
A version of article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Pregnant women may be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness, according to a new report published online June 26 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Among reproductive-aged women (15-44 years) infected with SARS-CoV-2, Pregnant women were 5.4 times more likely to be hospitalized, 1.5 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU, and 1.7 times more likely to need mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for age, underlying conditions, and race/ethnicity.
Furthermore, Hispanic and non-Hispanic black pregnant women appear to be disproportionately impacted by the infection.
Sascha Ellington, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Infant Linked Outcomes Team, and colleagues said that preventing COVID-19 infection in pregnant women should be a priority and any potential barriers to compliance with preventive measures need to be removed.
“During pregnancy, women experience immunologic and physiologic changes that could increase their risk for more severe illness from respiratory infections,” they wrote.
As of June 7, a total of 8,207 cases of COVID-19 in pregnant women were reported to the CDC, approximately 9% of COVID-19 cases among reproductive-aged women with known pregnancy status. The authors compared outcomes in these pregnant patients with those in 83,205 nonpregnant women with COVID-19. There was a substantially greater proportion of hospital admissions among pregnant patients (2,587; 31.5%) compared with nonpregnant patients (4,840; 5.8%) with COVID-19.
The authors cautioned that there were no data to differentiate between hospitalizations for COVID-19–related problems as opposed to those arising from pregnancy, including delivery.
For other severity measures, ICU admissions were reported for 1.5% of pregnant women compared with 0.9% for their nonpregnant counterparts, whereas mechanical ventilation was required for 0.5% compared with 0.3%, respectively. Mortality was identical, affecting 0.2% in both groups, with 16 deaths in pregnant patients with COVID-19 and 208 in nonpregnant patients.
Age had an impact as well, with hospitalization more frequent among those aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24, regardless of pregnancy status. When stratified by race/ethnicity, ICU admission was most frequently reported among pregnant women who were of non-Hispanic Asian lineage: 3.5% compared with 1.5% in all pregnant women.
Among pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reporting race/ethnicity, 46% were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 23% were white, whereas among women who gave birth in 2019, 24% were Hispanic, 15% were black, and 51% were white. “Although data on race/ethnicity were missing for 20% of pregnant women in this study, these findings suggest that pregnant women who are Hispanic and black might be disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy,” the authors wrote.
They noted that in a recent meta-analysis of influenza, pregnancy was similarly associated with a sevenfold risk for hospitalization, but a lower risk for ICU admission and no increased risk for death. A recent study suggested that COVID-19 severity during pregnancy may be lower than in other respiratory infections such as H1N1.
ACOG responds
In a response to the CDC findings, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advises calm, noting that the risk of needing the severity-associated interventions in the CDC report remains low and pregnant COVID-19 patients do not appear to have a greater risk for mortality.
Nevertheless, ACOG is reviewing all its COVID-19–related clinical and patient materials and “will make any necessary revisions to recommendations.”
In the meantime, the college advises clinicians to alert patients to the potential increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness during pregnancy. They should also stress to pregnant women and their families the need for precautions to prevent infection, paying particular attention to measures to protect those with greater occupational exposure to the virus.
ACOG also criticized the exclusion of pregnant and lactating women from clinical trials of potential coronavirus vaccines, noting that the new CDC findings underscore the importance of prioritizing pregnant patients to receive coronavirus vaccination when it becomes available.
“ACOG again urges the federal government to use its resources to ensure the safe inclusion of pregnant and lactating patients, including patients of color, in trials for vaccines and therapeutics to ensure that all populations are included in the search for ways to prevent and treat COVID-19,” the statement reads.
The CDC authors said that their report also highlights the need for more complete data to fully understand the risk for severe illness in pregnant women. To address these gaps, the CDC is collaborating with health departments in COVID-19 pregnancy surveillance for the reporting of outcomes in pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.
A version of article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Pregnant women may be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness, according to a new report published online June 26 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Among reproductive-aged women (15-44 years) infected with SARS-CoV-2, Pregnant women were 5.4 times more likely to be hospitalized, 1.5 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU, and 1.7 times more likely to need mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for age, underlying conditions, and race/ethnicity.
Furthermore, Hispanic and non-Hispanic black pregnant women appear to be disproportionately impacted by the infection.
Sascha Ellington, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Infant Linked Outcomes Team, and colleagues said that preventing COVID-19 infection in pregnant women should be a priority and any potential barriers to compliance with preventive measures need to be removed.
“During pregnancy, women experience immunologic and physiologic changes that could increase their risk for more severe illness from respiratory infections,” they wrote.
As of June 7, a total of 8,207 cases of COVID-19 in pregnant women were reported to the CDC, approximately 9% of COVID-19 cases among reproductive-aged women with known pregnancy status. The authors compared outcomes in these pregnant patients with those in 83,205 nonpregnant women with COVID-19. There was a substantially greater proportion of hospital admissions among pregnant patients (2,587; 31.5%) compared with nonpregnant patients (4,840; 5.8%) with COVID-19.
The authors cautioned that there were no data to differentiate between hospitalizations for COVID-19–related problems as opposed to those arising from pregnancy, including delivery.
For other severity measures, ICU admissions were reported for 1.5% of pregnant women compared with 0.9% for their nonpregnant counterparts, whereas mechanical ventilation was required for 0.5% compared with 0.3%, respectively. Mortality was identical, affecting 0.2% in both groups, with 16 deaths in pregnant patients with COVID-19 and 208 in nonpregnant patients.
Age had an impact as well, with hospitalization more frequent among those aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24, regardless of pregnancy status. When stratified by race/ethnicity, ICU admission was most frequently reported among pregnant women who were of non-Hispanic Asian lineage: 3.5% compared with 1.5% in all pregnant women.
Among pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reporting race/ethnicity, 46% were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 23% were white, whereas among women who gave birth in 2019, 24% were Hispanic, 15% were black, and 51% were white. “Although data on race/ethnicity were missing for 20% of pregnant women in this study, these findings suggest that pregnant women who are Hispanic and black might be disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy,” the authors wrote.
They noted that in a recent meta-analysis of influenza, pregnancy was similarly associated with a sevenfold risk for hospitalization, but a lower risk for ICU admission and no increased risk for death. A recent study suggested that COVID-19 severity during pregnancy may be lower than in other respiratory infections such as H1N1.
ACOG responds
In a response to the CDC findings, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advises calm, noting that the risk of needing the severity-associated interventions in the CDC report remains low and pregnant COVID-19 patients do not appear to have a greater risk for mortality.
Nevertheless, ACOG is reviewing all its COVID-19–related clinical and patient materials and “will make any necessary revisions to recommendations.”
In the meantime, the college advises clinicians to alert patients to the potential increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness during pregnancy. They should also stress to pregnant women and their families the need for precautions to prevent infection, paying particular attention to measures to protect those with greater occupational exposure to the virus.
ACOG also criticized the exclusion of pregnant and lactating women from clinical trials of potential coronavirus vaccines, noting that the new CDC findings underscore the importance of prioritizing pregnant patients to receive coronavirus vaccination when it becomes available.
“ACOG again urges the federal government to use its resources to ensure the safe inclusion of pregnant and lactating patients, including patients of color, in trials for vaccines and therapeutics to ensure that all populations are included in the search for ways to prevent and treat COVID-19,” the statement reads.
The CDC authors said that their report also highlights the need for more complete data to fully understand the risk for severe illness in pregnant women. To address these gaps, the CDC is collaborating with health departments in COVID-19 pregnancy surveillance for the reporting of outcomes in pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.
A version of article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Early hypertensive disorders in pregnancy linked to obesity
Rising classes of obesity are linked with progressively increased risk of early-onset hypertensive disorders in pregnant women, as has been established for late-onset hypertensive disorders, according to a U.S.-based retrospective cohort study.
Between 4% and 8% of pregnancies are impacted by hypertensive disorders, and preeclampsia is associated with a doubling of adverse neonatal events and causes 16% of maternal deaths in developed countries, previous studies have found. This study showed a clear risk of early-onset hypertensive disorders (less than 34 weeks’ gestation), which may be more deadly than late-onset disease: Compared with later-developing disorders, early hypertensive disorders are linked to a 400% increased risk of perinatal death and a 100%-300% increased risk of severe cardiovascular, renal, or hepatic maternal morbidity, according to previous studies.
The new research, led by Matthew Bicocca, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. The researchers analyzed data from U.S. Vital Statistics, including over 14 million singleton births. The sample excluded women with chronic hypertension and a body mass index (BMI) below 18.5 kg/m2.
Previous studies demonstrated that obesity is a risk factor for late-onset hypertensive disorders, but studies of early-onset hypertensive disorders have yielded conflicting results. That could be because early-onset disorders are rare, representing just 5%-10% of hypertensive disorders during pregnancy, making it difficult to obtain a sufficient sample size to show a relationship.
“We know that obese pregnant women are at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, and this is of particular importance with the increasing prevalence of obesity in the United States. As this is a nationwide cohort with a large sample size, it allowed for evaluation of the rare outcome of early-onset hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” said Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, who was asked to comment on the study.
The researchers classified the women in the study as nonobese (BMI, 18.5-29.9 kg/m2; 46%), class I obese (BMI, 30.0-34.9; 29%), class II obese (BMI, 35.0-39.9; 15%), or class III obese (BMI, 40 or higher; 10%). About 6% of the participants developed hypertensive disorders during pregnancy (0.3% early onset), and the associated risk was greater with increasing class of obesity. Compared with nonobese women, class III obesity was associated with the highest adjusted risk ratio (2.18; 95% confidence interval, 2.12-2.24) for early-onset hypertensive disorders, followed by class II obesity (aRR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.53-1.62) and class I (aRR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.10-1.16). A similar pattern was observed with late-onset hypertensive disorders, with the highest risk associated with class III obese (aRR, 3.93; 95% CI, 3.91-3.96), followed by class II (aRR, 2.60; 95% CI, 2.58-2.62) and class I (aRR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.70-1.73).
The mechanism underlying any potential link between obesity and risk of hypertensive orders of pregnancy isn’t completely understood, especially because the early-onset and late-onset hypertensive disorders have differing pathophysiology. “Early onset is the result from abnormal placentation [leading to] chronic placental insufficiency, and late onset likely [results from] placental insufficiency paired with oxidative stress from conditions such as obesity and insulin resistance,” Dr. Krishna said.
The new research reinforces the need for obese women to receive early prenatal care and counseling on nutrition and exercise “to mitigate weight gain during pregnancy in hopes of reducing their risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” she concluded.
No source of funding was disclosed. The authors reported having no potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Bicocca M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jun 11. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003901.
Rising classes of obesity are linked with progressively increased risk of early-onset hypertensive disorders in pregnant women, as has been established for late-onset hypertensive disorders, according to a U.S.-based retrospective cohort study.
Between 4% and 8% of pregnancies are impacted by hypertensive disorders, and preeclampsia is associated with a doubling of adverse neonatal events and causes 16% of maternal deaths in developed countries, previous studies have found. This study showed a clear risk of early-onset hypertensive disorders (less than 34 weeks’ gestation), which may be more deadly than late-onset disease: Compared with later-developing disorders, early hypertensive disorders are linked to a 400% increased risk of perinatal death and a 100%-300% increased risk of severe cardiovascular, renal, or hepatic maternal morbidity, according to previous studies.
The new research, led by Matthew Bicocca, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. The researchers analyzed data from U.S. Vital Statistics, including over 14 million singleton births. The sample excluded women with chronic hypertension and a body mass index (BMI) below 18.5 kg/m2.
Previous studies demonstrated that obesity is a risk factor for late-onset hypertensive disorders, but studies of early-onset hypertensive disorders have yielded conflicting results. That could be because early-onset disorders are rare, representing just 5%-10% of hypertensive disorders during pregnancy, making it difficult to obtain a sufficient sample size to show a relationship.
“We know that obese pregnant women are at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, and this is of particular importance with the increasing prevalence of obesity in the United States. As this is a nationwide cohort with a large sample size, it allowed for evaluation of the rare outcome of early-onset hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” said Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, who was asked to comment on the study.
The researchers classified the women in the study as nonobese (BMI, 18.5-29.9 kg/m2; 46%), class I obese (BMI, 30.0-34.9; 29%), class II obese (BMI, 35.0-39.9; 15%), or class III obese (BMI, 40 or higher; 10%). About 6% of the participants developed hypertensive disorders during pregnancy (0.3% early onset), and the associated risk was greater with increasing class of obesity. Compared with nonobese women, class III obesity was associated with the highest adjusted risk ratio (2.18; 95% confidence interval, 2.12-2.24) for early-onset hypertensive disorders, followed by class II obesity (aRR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.53-1.62) and class I (aRR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.10-1.16). A similar pattern was observed with late-onset hypertensive disorders, with the highest risk associated with class III obese (aRR, 3.93; 95% CI, 3.91-3.96), followed by class II (aRR, 2.60; 95% CI, 2.58-2.62) and class I (aRR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.70-1.73).
The mechanism underlying any potential link between obesity and risk of hypertensive orders of pregnancy isn’t completely understood, especially because the early-onset and late-onset hypertensive disorders have differing pathophysiology. “Early onset is the result from abnormal placentation [leading to] chronic placental insufficiency, and late onset likely [results from] placental insufficiency paired with oxidative stress from conditions such as obesity and insulin resistance,” Dr. Krishna said.
The new research reinforces the need for obese women to receive early prenatal care and counseling on nutrition and exercise “to mitigate weight gain during pregnancy in hopes of reducing their risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” she concluded.
No source of funding was disclosed. The authors reported having no potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Bicocca M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jun 11. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003901.
Rising classes of obesity are linked with progressively increased risk of early-onset hypertensive disorders in pregnant women, as has been established for late-onset hypertensive disorders, according to a U.S.-based retrospective cohort study.
Between 4% and 8% of pregnancies are impacted by hypertensive disorders, and preeclampsia is associated with a doubling of adverse neonatal events and causes 16% of maternal deaths in developed countries, previous studies have found. This study showed a clear risk of early-onset hypertensive disorders (less than 34 weeks’ gestation), which may be more deadly than late-onset disease: Compared with later-developing disorders, early hypertensive disorders are linked to a 400% increased risk of perinatal death and a 100%-300% increased risk of severe cardiovascular, renal, or hepatic maternal morbidity, according to previous studies.
The new research, led by Matthew Bicocca, MD, of the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. The researchers analyzed data from U.S. Vital Statistics, including over 14 million singleton births. The sample excluded women with chronic hypertension and a body mass index (BMI) below 18.5 kg/m2.
Previous studies demonstrated that obesity is a risk factor for late-onset hypertensive disorders, but studies of early-onset hypertensive disorders have yielded conflicting results. That could be because early-onset disorders are rare, representing just 5%-10% of hypertensive disorders during pregnancy, making it difficult to obtain a sufficient sample size to show a relationship.
“We know that obese pregnant women are at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, and this is of particular importance with the increasing prevalence of obesity in the United States. As this is a nationwide cohort with a large sample size, it allowed for evaluation of the rare outcome of early-onset hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” said Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, who was asked to comment on the study.
The researchers classified the women in the study as nonobese (BMI, 18.5-29.9 kg/m2; 46%), class I obese (BMI, 30.0-34.9; 29%), class II obese (BMI, 35.0-39.9; 15%), or class III obese (BMI, 40 or higher; 10%). About 6% of the participants developed hypertensive disorders during pregnancy (0.3% early onset), and the associated risk was greater with increasing class of obesity. Compared with nonobese women, class III obesity was associated with the highest adjusted risk ratio (2.18; 95% confidence interval, 2.12-2.24) for early-onset hypertensive disorders, followed by class II obesity (aRR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.53-1.62) and class I (aRR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.10-1.16). A similar pattern was observed with late-onset hypertensive disorders, with the highest risk associated with class III obese (aRR, 3.93; 95% CI, 3.91-3.96), followed by class II (aRR, 2.60; 95% CI, 2.58-2.62) and class I (aRR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.70-1.73).
The mechanism underlying any potential link between obesity and risk of hypertensive orders of pregnancy isn’t completely understood, especially because the early-onset and late-onset hypertensive disorders have differing pathophysiology. “Early onset is the result from abnormal placentation [leading to] chronic placental insufficiency, and late onset likely [results from] placental insufficiency paired with oxidative stress from conditions such as obesity and insulin resistance,” Dr. Krishna said.
The new research reinforces the need for obese women to receive early prenatal care and counseling on nutrition and exercise “to mitigate weight gain during pregnancy in hopes of reducing their risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” she concluded.
No source of funding was disclosed. The authors reported having no potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Bicocca M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jun 11. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003901.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
New definitions of hypertension reveal new preeclampsia risks
according to results from a large retrospective cohort study.
In a 2017 guideline, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association changed clinical definitions of hypertension in adults. People previously deemed to have prehypertension were classed as having elevated blood pressure (systolic BP 120-129 mm Hg and diastolic BP >80 mm Hg) or stage 1 hypertension (systolic 130-139 mm Hg or diastolic 80-89 mm Hg).
And while hypertension as earlier defined (at or above systolic 140 mm Hg or at or above diastolic 90 mm Hg; now called stage 2 hypertension) has been long associated with adverse maternal and fetal effects, it was unclear whether lesser elevations in blood pressure also are linked to the same.
For their research published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Elizabeth F. Sutton, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues looked at records from 18,162 women who had given birth to a single baby and had two or more prenatal appointments before week 20 of pregnancy. The women in the study were seen at the same institution over a 3-year period ending in 2018. Three-quarters of the cohort had normal blood pressure, while 14% had elevated blood pressure and 5% had stage 1 hypertension before 20 weeks. Another 6% of the cohort had stage 2 hypertension.
The authors found preeclampsia risk increased with increasing blood pressure elevation. Among women with normal blood pressure before 20 weeks’ gestation, 5% had preeclampsia, while 7% of those with elevated blood pressure did, as did with 12% of women with stage 1 hypertension and 30% of women with stage 2 hypertension. The increase in risk of preeclampsia was because of preterm preeclampsia in the women with elevated blood pressure. Both term and preterm preeclampsia were factors in women with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension, but preterm preeclampsia was associated with a higher risk. Although black race was associated with a higher risk of preeclampsia, the pattern of increasing risk with higher blood pressure category was similar in both black and white women.
Researchers also looked at gestational diabetes, severe maternal morbidity, neonatal morbidity, and placental abruption as secondary outcomes. They found the risk of gestational diabetes increased in a stepwise fashion as blood pressure increased, compared with normotensive women. Higher risk of severe maternal and neonatal morbidities was seen only in women with stage 2 hypertension. Placental abruption was rare in this cohort and the odds were not increased in any group.
The findings “highlight the importance of early pregnancy BP elevations, which may reflect prepregnancy BP status,” and suggest that the new guidelines “can identify women early in pregnancy who may benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Sutton and colleagues wrote.
Although randomized trials will be needed to identify the best prevention and management strategies for this patient group, they added, some clinicians may want to consider low-dose aspirin – an intervention shown to safely reduce preeclampsia risk among women with stage 2 hypertension – for women with elevated BP or stage 1 hypertension.
Dr. Sutton and colleagues acknowledged that its retrospective design is among the limitations of their study, and that use of antihypertensive medications could not be captured in their study.
Preeclampsia researcher Mark Santillan, MD, PhD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in an interview that the results “open the door to considering these new blood pressure categories as a prognosticator” for preeclampsia. “This paper furthers the field by applying these new categories to hypertensive diseases in pregnancy which are not well studied” in comparison to nonpregnant hypertensive states.
“Are these seemingly normal blood pressures associated with poor outcomes, maternal or neonatal? I think that this paper strongly tells us yes,” Dr. Santillan added. “But does that mean we have to do more aggressive blood pressure monitoring, seeing your doctor every month or so? Maybe we should change the way we’re treating people early on in gestation.”
The question of whether aspirin helps reduce preeclampsia risk in women with elevated blood pressure or stage 1 hypertension needs to be resolved in studies, Dr. Santillan said. But because of its favorable risk profile, “if I consider that if a patient has significant risk factors for developing preeclampsia, baby aspirin is fine.”
Postpregnancy blood pressure management is something that should also be reconsidered in light of the findings, Dr. Santillan said. Half of women with preeclampsia will have chronic hypertension after they deliver, increasing their risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes later in life. But because most are young and otherwise healthy, they often are lost to follow-up.
“I think this paper has helped open up that conversation, that there is probably a link between what we’re doing in pregnancy to what we should be doing in the postpartum period,” he said.
Dr. Sutton and colleagues’ study received funding from the Richard King Mellon Foundation, the American Heart Association; and the National Institutes of Health. None of its authors had relevant disclosures. Dr. Santillan disclosed holding U.S. and international patents for preeclampsia prediction, diagnosis, and treatment.
SOURCE: Sutton et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136:129-39.
according to results from a large retrospective cohort study.
In a 2017 guideline, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association changed clinical definitions of hypertension in adults. People previously deemed to have prehypertension were classed as having elevated blood pressure (systolic BP 120-129 mm Hg and diastolic BP >80 mm Hg) or stage 1 hypertension (systolic 130-139 mm Hg or diastolic 80-89 mm Hg).
And while hypertension as earlier defined (at or above systolic 140 mm Hg or at or above diastolic 90 mm Hg; now called stage 2 hypertension) has been long associated with adverse maternal and fetal effects, it was unclear whether lesser elevations in blood pressure also are linked to the same.
For their research published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Elizabeth F. Sutton, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues looked at records from 18,162 women who had given birth to a single baby and had two or more prenatal appointments before week 20 of pregnancy. The women in the study were seen at the same institution over a 3-year period ending in 2018. Three-quarters of the cohort had normal blood pressure, while 14% had elevated blood pressure and 5% had stage 1 hypertension before 20 weeks. Another 6% of the cohort had stage 2 hypertension.
The authors found preeclampsia risk increased with increasing blood pressure elevation. Among women with normal blood pressure before 20 weeks’ gestation, 5% had preeclampsia, while 7% of those with elevated blood pressure did, as did with 12% of women with stage 1 hypertension and 30% of women with stage 2 hypertension. The increase in risk of preeclampsia was because of preterm preeclampsia in the women with elevated blood pressure. Both term and preterm preeclampsia were factors in women with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension, but preterm preeclampsia was associated with a higher risk. Although black race was associated with a higher risk of preeclampsia, the pattern of increasing risk with higher blood pressure category was similar in both black and white women.
Researchers also looked at gestational diabetes, severe maternal morbidity, neonatal morbidity, and placental abruption as secondary outcomes. They found the risk of gestational diabetes increased in a stepwise fashion as blood pressure increased, compared with normotensive women. Higher risk of severe maternal and neonatal morbidities was seen only in women with stage 2 hypertension. Placental abruption was rare in this cohort and the odds were not increased in any group.
The findings “highlight the importance of early pregnancy BP elevations, which may reflect prepregnancy BP status,” and suggest that the new guidelines “can identify women early in pregnancy who may benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Sutton and colleagues wrote.
Although randomized trials will be needed to identify the best prevention and management strategies for this patient group, they added, some clinicians may want to consider low-dose aspirin – an intervention shown to safely reduce preeclampsia risk among women with stage 2 hypertension – for women with elevated BP or stage 1 hypertension.
Dr. Sutton and colleagues acknowledged that its retrospective design is among the limitations of their study, and that use of antihypertensive medications could not be captured in their study.
Preeclampsia researcher Mark Santillan, MD, PhD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in an interview that the results “open the door to considering these new blood pressure categories as a prognosticator” for preeclampsia. “This paper furthers the field by applying these new categories to hypertensive diseases in pregnancy which are not well studied” in comparison to nonpregnant hypertensive states.
“Are these seemingly normal blood pressures associated with poor outcomes, maternal or neonatal? I think that this paper strongly tells us yes,” Dr. Santillan added. “But does that mean we have to do more aggressive blood pressure monitoring, seeing your doctor every month or so? Maybe we should change the way we’re treating people early on in gestation.”
The question of whether aspirin helps reduce preeclampsia risk in women with elevated blood pressure or stage 1 hypertension needs to be resolved in studies, Dr. Santillan said. But because of its favorable risk profile, “if I consider that if a patient has significant risk factors for developing preeclampsia, baby aspirin is fine.”
Postpregnancy blood pressure management is something that should also be reconsidered in light of the findings, Dr. Santillan said. Half of women with preeclampsia will have chronic hypertension after they deliver, increasing their risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes later in life. But because most are young and otherwise healthy, they often are lost to follow-up.
“I think this paper has helped open up that conversation, that there is probably a link between what we’re doing in pregnancy to what we should be doing in the postpartum period,” he said.
Dr. Sutton and colleagues’ study received funding from the Richard King Mellon Foundation, the American Heart Association; and the National Institutes of Health. None of its authors had relevant disclosures. Dr. Santillan disclosed holding U.S. and international patents for preeclampsia prediction, diagnosis, and treatment.
SOURCE: Sutton et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136:129-39.
according to results from a large retrospective cohort study.
In a 2017 guideline, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association changed clinical definitions of hypertension in adults. People previously deemed to have prehypertension were classed as having elevated blood pressure (systolic BP 120-129 mm Hg and diastolic BP >80 mm Hg) or stage 1 hypertension (systolic 130-139 mm Hg or diastolic 80-89 mm Hg).
And while hypertension as earlier defined (at or above systolic 140 mm Hg or at or above diastolic 90 mm Hg; now called stage 2 hypertension) has been long associated with adverse maternal and fetal effects, it was unclear whether lesser elevations in blood pressure also are linked to the same.
For their research published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Elizabeth F. Sutton, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues looked at records from 18,162 women who had given birth to a single baby and had two or more prenatal appointments before week 20 of pregnancy. The women in the study were seen at the same institution over a 3-year period ending in 2018. Three-quarters of the cohort had normal blood pressure, while 14% had elevated blood pressure and 5% had stage 1 hypertension before 20 weeks. Another 6% of the cohort had stage 2 hypertension.
The authors found preeclampsia risk increased with increasing blood pressure elevation. Among women with normal blood pressure before 20 weeks’ gestation, 5% had preeclampsia, while 7% of those with elevated blood pressure did, as did with 12% of women with stage 1 hypertension and 30% of women with stage 2 hypertension. The increase in risk of preeclampsia was because of preterm preeclampsia in the women with elevated blood pressure. Both term and preterm preeclampsia were factors in women with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension, but preterm preeclampsia was associated with a higher risk. Although black race was associated with a higher risk of preeclampsia, the pattern of increasing risk with higher blood pressure category was similar in both black and white women.
Researchers also looked at gestational diabetes, severe maternal morbidity, neonatal morbidity, and placental abruption as secondary outcomes. They found the risk of gestational diabetes increased in a stepwise fashion as blood pressure increased, compared with normotensive women. Higher risk of severe maternal and neonatal morbidities was seen only in women with stage 2 hypertension. Placental abruption was rare in this cohort and the odds were not increased in any group.
The findings “highlight the importance of early pregnancy BP elevations, which may reflect prepregnancy BP status,” and suggest that the new guidelines “can identify women early in pregnancy who may benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Sutton and colleagues wrote.
Although randomized trials will be needed to identify the best prevention and management strategies for this patient group, they added, some clinicians may want to consider low-dose aspirin – an intervention shown to safely reduce preeclampsia risk among women with stage 2 hypertension – for women with elevated BP or stage 1 hypertension.
Dr. Sutton and colleagues acknowledged that its retrospective design is among the limitations of their study, and that use of antihypertensive medications could not be captured in their study.
Preeclampsia researcher Mark Santillan, MD, PhD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in an interview that the results “open the door to considering these new blood pressure categories as a prognosticator” for preeclampsia. “This paper furthers the field by applying these new categories to hypertensive diseases in pregnancy which are not well studied” in comparison to nonpregnant hypertensive states.
“Are these seemingly normal blood pressures associated with poor outcomes, maternal or neonatal? I think that this paper strongly tells us yes,” Dr. Santillan added. “But does that mean we have to do more aggressive blood pressure monitoring, seeing your doctor every month or so? Maybe we should change the way we’re treating people early on in gestation.”
The question of whether aspirin helps reduce preeclampsia risk in women with elevated blood pressure or stage 1 hypertension needs to be resolved in studies, Dr. Santillan said. But because of its favorable risk profile, “if I consider that if a patient has significant risk factors for developing preeclampsia, baby aspirin is fine.”
Postpregnancy blood pressure management is something that should also be reconsidered in light of the findings, Dr. Santillan said. Half of women with preeclampsia will have chronic hypertension after they deliver, increasing their risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes later in life. But because most are young and otherwise healthy, they often are lost to follow-up.
“I think this paper has helped open up that conversation, that there is probably a link between what we’re doing in pregnancy to what we should be doing in the postpartum period,” he said.
Dr. Sutton and colleagues’ study received funding from the Richard King Mellon Foundation, the American Heart Association; and the National Institutes of Health. None of its authors had relevant disclosures. Dr. Santillan disclosed holding U.S. and international patents for preeclampsia prediction, diagnosis, and treatment.
SOURCE: Sutton et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136:129-39.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Dairy doesn’t do a body good in midlife women
Dairy consumption does not improve bone mineral density (BMD) or reduce the risk of osteoporotic fracture in women starting menopause, a new analysis of the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) indicates.
And this was regardless of baseline menopausal status, say Taylor Wallace, PhD, of George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., and colleagues in their article published online in Menopause.
“Our previous work indicated a potential premenopausal critical window in regard to the effectiveness of calcium supplements,” they noted.
Clifford Rosen, MD, professor of medicine, Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview that he believes the study reinforces earlier work that dairy intake in women aged 45-55 years does not affect the rate of bone loss or fractures.
“The SWAN study is longitudinal and with sufficient numbers to support their conclusion,” Dr. Rosen said.
SWAN study: White women consume the most dairy
As dairy is known to be one of the foremost sources of calcium, along with other bone beneficial nutrients, Dr. Wallace and colleagues decided to examine intake of this food type with long-term bone health using the SWAN data.
The SWAN bone substudy started in 1996 and involved 3,302 pre- or early perimenopausal women aged 42-53 years. The sample size for the annualized rate of BMD loss and fracture analysis involved 1955 women.
A modified food frequency questionnaire was used at baseline, at visit 5, and again at visit 9 to record daily dairy consumption, among many other food items.
“Women were classified into four dairy groups based on this cumulative average dairy intake,” Wallace and colleagues note. Intake was grouped into < 0.5 servings/day; 0.5 to < 1.5 servings/day; 1.5 to < 2.5 servings/day, and ≥ 2.5 servings/day.
“Non-Hispanic white individuals were more likely to consume higher amounts of dairy compared to African American, Chinese, and Japanese individuals,” the authors noted.
They found no significant differences for baseline age, body mass index, femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD, calcium supplement use, or fracture history by dairy intake group.
There were also no differences in the hazard ratios or relative risk of nontraumatic fractures by frequency of daily dairy intake.
Findings on dairy and bone are inconsistent
The authors caution that several factors should be taken into account when considering these new findings.
“First, dairy intake was low [overall] among SWAN participants, with 65% reporting consumption of < 1.5 servings/day,” they point out.
Dairy intake was also “particularly low” among racial groups other than whites, which may be due to higher rates of lactose intolerance among ethnic minorities, they speculate.
They previously reported that the use of calcium dietary supplements in SWAN was associated with a lower annualized rate of femoral neck BMD loss as well as BMD loss at the lumbar spine over 10 years of follow-up, mainly in women who were premenopausal at baseline.
But no associations were observed in the risk of bone fracture in any women in that analysis, regardless of menopausal status.
In this new analysis, there were no significant differences in calcium supplement use across the dairy intake groups.
Dr. Wallace and colleagues also noted that the relevance of dairy product intake for bone health has been in question as some observational studies have even “suggested consumption to be associated with an increased risk of fractures.”
The lead author of one of these studies, Karl Michaelsson, MD, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in an interview that his study had looked only at milk intake, and the lack of benefit on bone health from high milk consumption may not apply to all dairy products.
We “may need to look at different types of dairy products,” he said.
Summing up, Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director of the North American Menopause Society, said the new SWAN findings do add to the evidence base, “albeit inconsistent ... suggesting a lack of benefit from dairy intake on BMD and fracture risk.”
Vitamin D data were not available; dairy may help in this respect
Dr. Rosen also noted that no information was available on vitamin D levels in patients involved in SWAN, which he believes is a limitation of the study.
Nevertheless, “it is important to recognize that elderly individuals who increase their dairy intake may have health benefits as recognized in the Nurses’ Health Study, possibly due to increased protein intake, higher vitamin D levels, or greater calcium intake,” he observed.
A randomized trial of enhanced dairy intake in long-term care residents is currently underway, which should provide answers for a much more vulnerable population than those in the SWAN cohort, Dr. Rosen concluded.
Dr. Wallace has reported serving on the scientific advisory board of the Vitamin Shoppe and has received research support from the National Dairy Council and scientific consulting fees from several food companies. Dr. Rosen has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Dairy consumption does not improve bone mineral density (BMD) or reduce the risk of osteoporotic fracture in women starting menopause, a new analysis of the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) indicates.
And this was regardless of baseline menopausal status, say Taylor Wallace, PhD, of George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., and colleagues in their article published online in Menopause.
“Our previous work indicated a potential premenopausal critical window in regard to the effectiveness of calcium supplements,” they noted.
Clifford Rosen, MD, professor of medicine, Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview that he believes the study reinforces earlier work that dairy intake in women aged 45-55 years does not affect the rate of bone loss or fractures.
“The SWAN study is longitudinal and with sufficient numbers to support their conclusion,” Dr. Rosen said.
SWAN study: White women consume the most dairy
As dairy is known to be one of the foremost sources of calcium, along with other bone beneficial nutrients, Dr. Wallace and colleagues decided to examine intake of this food type with long-term bone health using the SWAN data.
The SWAN bone substudy started in 1996 and involved 3,302 pre- or early perimenopausal women aged 42-53 years. The sample size for the annualized rate of BMD loss and fracture analysis involved 1955 women.
A modified food frequency questionnaire was used at baseline, at visit 5, and again at visit 9 to record daily dairy consumption, among many other food items.
“Women were classified into four dairy groups based on this cumulative average dairy intake,” Wallace and colleagues note. Intake was grouped into < 0.5 servings/day; 0.5 to < 1.5 servings/day; 1.5 to < 2.5 servings/day, and ≥ 2.5 servings/day.
“Non-Hispanic white individuals were more likely to consume higher amounts of dairy compared to African American, Chinese, and Japanese individuals,” the authors noted.
They found no significant differences for baseline age, body mass index, femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD, calcium supplement use, or fracture history by dairy intake group.
There were also no differences in the hazard ratios or relative risk of nontraumatic fractures by frequency of daily dairy intake.
Findings on dairy and bone are inconsistent
The authors caution that several factors should be taken into account when considering these new findings.
“First, dairy intake was low [overall] among SWAN participants, with 65% reporting consumption of < 1.5 servings/day,” they point out.
Dairy intake was also “particularly low” among racial groups other than whites, which may be due to higher rates of lactose intolerance among ethnic minorities, they speculate.
They previously reported that the use of calcium dietary supplements in SWAN was associated with a lower annualized rate of femoral neck BMD loss as well as BMD loss at the lumbar spine over 10 years of follow-up, mainly in women who were premenopausal at baseline.
But no associations were observed in the risk of bone fracture in any women in that analysis, regardless of menopausal status.
In this new analysis, there were no significant differences in calcium supplement use across the dairy intake groups.
Dr. Wallace and colleagues also noted that the relevance of dairy product intake for bone health has been in question as some observational studies have even “suggested consumption to be associated with an increased risk of fractures.”
The lead author of one of these studies, Karl Michaelsson, MD, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in an interview that his study had looked only at milk intake, and the lack of benefit on bone health from high milk consumption may not apply to all dairy products.
We “may need to look at different types of dairy products,” he said.
Summing up, Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director of the North American Menopause Society, said the new SWAN findings do add to the evidence base, “albeit inconsistent ... suggesting a lack of benefit from dairy intake on BMD and fracture risk.”
Vitamin D data were not available; dairy may help in this respect
Dr. Rosen also noted that no information was available on vitamin D levels in patients involved in SWAN, which he believes is a limitation of the study.
Nevertheless, “it is important to recognize that elderly individuals who increase their dairy intake may have health benefits as recognized in the Nurses’ Health Study, possibly due to increased protein intake, higher vitamin D levels, or greater calcium intake,” he observed.
A randomized trial of enhanced dairy intake in long-term care residents is currently underway, which should provide answers for a much more vulnerable population than those in the SWAN cohort, Dr. Rosen concluded.
Dr. Wallace has reported serving on the scientific advisory board of the Vitamin Shoppe and has received research support from the National Dairy Council and scientific consulting fees from several food companies. Dr. Rosen has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Dairy consumption does not improve bone mineral density (BMD) or reduce the risk of osteoporotic fracture in women starting menopause, a new analysis of the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN) indicates.
And this was regardless of baseline menopausal status, say Taylor Wallace, PhD, of George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., and colleagues in their article published online in Menopause.
“Our previous work indicated a potential premenopausal critical window in regard to the effectiveness of calcium supplements,” they noted.
Clifford Rosen, MD, professor of medicine, Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview that he believes the study reinforces earlier work that dairy intake in women aged 45-55 years does not affect the rate of bone loss or fractures.
“The SWAN study is longitudinal and with sufficient numbers to support their conclusion,” Dr. Rosen said.
SWAN study: White women consume the most dairy
As dairy is known to be one of the foremost sources of calcium, along with other bone beneficial nutrients, Dr. Wallace and colleagues decided to examine intake of this food type with long-term bone health using the SWAN data.
The SWAN bone substudy started in 1996 and involved 3,302 pre- or early perimenopausal women aged 42-53 years. The sample size for the annualized rate of BMD loss and fracture analysis involved 1955 women.
A modified food frequency questionnaire was used at baseline, at visit 5, and again at visit 9 to record daily dairy consumption, among many other food items.
“Women were classified into four dairy groups based on this cumulative average dairy intake,” Wallace and colleagues note. Intake was grouped into < 0.5 servings/day; 0.5 to < 1.5 servings/day; 1.5 to < 2.5 servings/day, and ≥ 2.5 servings/day.
“Non-Hispanic white individuals were more likely to consume higher amounts of dairy compared to African American, Chinese, and Japanese individuals,” the authors noted.
They found no significant differences for baseline age, body mass index, femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD, calcium supplement use, or fracture history by dairy intake group.
There were also no differences in the hazard ratios or relative risk of nontraumatic fractures by frequency of daily dairy intake.
Findings on dairy and bone are inconsistent
The authors caution that several factors should be taken into account when considering these new findings.
“First, dairy intake was low [overall] among SWAN participants, with 65% reporting consumption of < 1.5 servings/day,” they point out.
Dairy intake was also “particularly low” among racial groups other than whites, which may be due to higher rates of lactose intolerance among ethnic minorities, they speculate.
They previously reported that the use of calcium dietary supplements in SWAN was associated with a lower annualized rate of femoral neck BMD loss as well as BMD loss at the lumbar spine over 10 years of follow-up, mainly in women who were premenopausal at baseline.
But no associations were observed in the risk of bone fracture in any women in that analysis, regardless of menopausal status.
In this new analysis, there were no significant differences in calcium supplement use across the dairy intake groups.
Dr. Wallace and colleagues also noted that the relevance of dairy product intake for bone health has been in question as some observational studies have even “suggested consumption to be associated with an increased risk of fractures.”
The lead author of one of these studies, Karl Michaelsson, MD, PhD, of Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in an interview that his study had looked only at milk intake, and the lack of benefit on bone health from high milk consumption may not apply to all dairy products.
We “may need to look at different types of dairy products,” he said.
Summing up, Stephanie Faubion, MD, MBA, medical director of the North American Menopause Society, said the new SWAN findings do add to the evidence base, “albeit inconsistent ... suggesting a lack of benefit from dairy intake on BMD and fracture risk.”
Vitamin D data were not available; dairy may help in this respect
Dr. Rosen also noted that no information was available on vitamin D levels in patients involved in SWAN, which he believes is a limitation of the study.
Nevertheless, “it is important to recognize that elderly individuals who increase their dairy intake may have health benefits as recognized in the Nurses’ Health Study, possibly due to increased protein intake, higher vitamin D levels, or greater calcium intake,” he observed.
A randomized trial of enhanced dairy intake in long-term care residents is currently underway, which should provide answers for a much more vulnerable population than those in the SWAN cohort, Dr. Rosen concluded.
Dr. Wallace has reported serving on the scientific advisory board of the Vitamin Shoppe and has received research support from the National Dairy Council and scientific consulting fees from several food companies. Dr. Rosen has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Disparate study results on elective labor costs fuel debate
Cost concerns have circulated regarding elective induction of labor, a method that’s become increasingly popular in the United States. Two studies in Obstetrics & Gynecology, however, offer no consensus on the cost burden of this method.
A retrospective analysis of a large cohort in California reported higher costs for induction, compared with spontaneous labor, after accounting for variables such as parity, mode of delivery, and gestational age. A prospective study of five Utah hospitals found no significant cost differences between induction and expectant management.
The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction versus Expectant Management), a multicenter study that compared elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation with spontaneous labor in low-risk nulliparous women, suggests that induction may have some benefits. While its researchers found no differences in perinatal outcomes, induction cases had fewer cesareans, fewer hypertensive disorders, and fewer newborns requiring respiratory support.
One key question that remains following ARRIVE is whether this practice should be implemented universally, Alyssa R. Hersh, MD, MPH, lead author of the California study, said in an interview. Quantifying the costs associated with elective labor is important because “health care in the United States is already much more expensive than in other countries, and [elective labor] could have a dramatic impact on annual health care costs.”
In a retrospective analysis, Dr. Hersh, of the Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and her colleagues examined data from more than 1.2 million women in California with singleton, nonanomalous births. They excluded for multiple factors such as medically indicated induction of labor, placenta previa, breech presentation, or planned cesarean delivery.
Estimating cost differences between elective induction and spontaneous labor for mothers and neonates, they stratified results by vaginal or cesarean delivery, parity, gestational age at delivery, and geographic location. Elective induced labor represented 15% of the overall cohort of 1.2 million women.
Among vaginal deliveries, median maternal hospitalization costs were $10,175 in the induction group and $9,462 in the spontaneous labor group. For cesarean deliveries, the median costs were $20,294 with induction of labor and $18,812 with spontaneous labor.
Costs of maternal hospitalization with elective induction of labor were significantly higher than that of spontaneous labor, regardless of parity, mode of delivery, and gestational age at delivery, the authors reported. Comparing costs at rural and urban areas, the induction group saw higher maternal hospitalization costs and longer lengths of stay regardless of scenario.
Neonatal care was the one metric that incurred lower costs and lengths of stay in the induction group. Fewer adverse outcomes in this group could explain this outlier. “However, because this is observational data, we cannot elucidate what exactly contributed to these decreased costs,” Dr. Hersh and colleagues noted.
Timeliness was another limitation. “It is important to note that our study was conducted between 2007 and 2011, and the patients undergoing elective induction of labor during those years may differ from women undergoing elective induction of labor currently,” the authors acknowledged.
Another study by Brett D. Einerson, MD, MPH, of the University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, and associates evaluated the actual hospital costs of patients undergoing elective induction and expectant management in a subset of patients from the ARRIVE trial.
“If, medically speaking, induction is equal to expectant management or has some benefit, as the larger ARRIVE trial suggests, we wanted to know: At what cost?” Dr. Einerson said in an interview.
Study participants hailed from five Utah hospitals within two health systems: the University of Utah Health and Intermountain Healthcare. Taking available data for 1,231 enrollees, investigators randomized 608 to labor induction and 623 to spontaneous labor. They measured actual hospital costs using advanced value-based analytics platforms at the Utah hospitals, comparing cost means and reporting the relative difference between induction and expectant management.
Overall, they found no significant differences between the mean total cost of elective induction and expectant management (adjusted mean difference, +4.7%). This was the case for other metrics: Costs did not vary among the five health systems or in most phases of care, including maternal inpatient postpartum care, maternal outpatient care after discharge, neonatal hospital care, and neonatal care after discharge.
The induction group did incur higher maternal inpatient intrapartum and delivery care costs (17%). However, these were offset by savings achieved during outpatient antenatal care (–47%). The assumption was additional costs of time spent on the labor ward might overwhelm cost savings elsewhere (reduced cesarean deliveries, fewer prenatal appointments and tests). “But this was not the case,” Dr. Einerson said.
Ultimately, the study was not large enough to find smaller differences in cost, he noted. It was only large enough to say that cost didn’t differentiate between arms with a margin of +/–7%. “A cost increase (or cost savings) with induction of 7% is meaningful over time and on a national scale,” Dr. Einerson explained.
Taken together, the two studies show that cost is not an insurmountable barrier to elective induced labor, Jeffrey L. Ecker, MD, and Mark A. Clapp, MD, MPH, wrote in an accompanying editorial (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136[1]:6-7).
“This will be especially true if we are innovative and creatively adapt our facilities and spaces, thinking about where and how some of the required care can be appropriately and more economically offered,” they noted.
“Specifically, strategies to safely reduce labor and delivery time for inductions of labor, including considering and studying outpatient cervical ripening, may make elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation even less costly and even more feasible to offer to all women,” suggested Dr. Ecker and Dr. Clapp, both at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
Dr. Hersh and coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures, and there was no external funding for their study. Dr. Einerson and most coauthors reported no relevant financial disclosures; one coauthor reported receiving funds from GestVision as a consultant, and another coauthor reported funds paid to her or her institution from some pharmaceutical companies when she was primary investigator on various trials or a consultant. This study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Neither Dr. Ecker nor Dr Clapp had any relevant financial disclosures or received any funding.
SOURCES: Hersh AR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003865; Einerson BD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003930.
Cost concerns have circulated regarding elective induction of labor, a method that’s become increasingly popular in the United States. Two studies in Obstetrics & Gynecology, however, offer no consensus on the cost burden of this method.
A retrospective analysis of a large cohort in California reported higher costs for induction, compared with spontaneous labor, after accounting for variables such as parity, mode of delivery, and gestational age. A prospective study of five Utah hospitals found no significant cost differences between induction and expectant management.
The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction versus Expectant Management), a multicenter study that compared elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation with spontaneous labor in low-risk nulliparous women, suggests that induction may have some benefits. While its researchers found no differences in perinatal outcomes, induction cases had fewer cesareans, fewer hypertensive disorders, and fewer newborns requiring respiratory support.
One key question that remains following ARRIVE is whether this practice should be implemented universally, Alyssa R. Hersh, MD, MPH, lead author of the California study, said in an interview. Quantifying the costs associated with elective labor is important because “health care in the United States is already much more expensive than in other countries, and [elective labor] could have a dramatic impact on annual health care costs.”
In a retrospective analysis, Dr. Hersh, of the Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and her colleagues examined data from more than 1.2 million women in California with singleton, nonanomalous births. They excluded for multiple factors such as medically indicated induction of labor, placenta previa, breech presentation, or planned cesarean delivery.
Estimating cost differences between elective induction and spontaneous labor for mothers and neonates, they stratified results by vaginal or cesarean delivery, parity, gestational age at delivery, and geographic location. Elective induced labor represented 15% of the overall cohort of 1.2 million women.
Among vaginal deliveries, median maternal hospitalization costs were $10,175 in the induction group and $9,462 in the spontaneous labor group. For cesarean deliveries, the median costs were $20,294 with induction of labor and $18,812 with spontaneous labor.
Costs of maternal hospitalization with elective induction of labor were significantly higher than that of spontaneous labor, regardless of parity, mode of delivery, and gestational age at delivery, the authors reported. Comparing costs at rural and urban areas, the induction group saw higher maternal hospitalization costs and longer lengths of stay regardless of scenario.
Neonatal care was the one metric that incurred lower costs and lengths of stay in the induction group. Fewer adverse outcomes in this group could explain this outlier. “However, because this is observational data, we cannot elucidate what exactly contributed to these decreased costs,” Dr. Hersh and colleagues noted.
Timeliness was another limitation. “It is important to note that our study was conducted between 2007 and 2011, and the patients undergoing elective induction of labor during those years may differ from women undergoing elective induction of labor currently,” the authors acknowledged.
Another study by Brett D. Einerson, MD, MPH, of the University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, and associates evaluated the actual hospital costs of patients undergoing elective induction and expectant management in a subset of patients from the ARRIVE trial.
“If, medically speaking, induction is equal to expectant management or has some benefit, as the larger ARRIVE trial suggests, we wanted to know: At what cost?” Dr. Einerson said in an interview.
Study participants hailed from five Utah hospitals within two health systems: the University of Utah Health and Intermountain Healthcare. Taking available data for 1,231 enrollees, investigators randomized 608 to labor induction and 623 to spontaneous labor. They measured actual hospital costs using advanced value-based analytics platforms at the Utah hospitals, comparing cost means and reporting the relative difference between induction and expectant management.
Overall, they found no significant differences between the mean total cost of elective induction and expectant management (adjusted mean difference, +4.7%). This was the case for other metrics: Costs did not vary among the five health systems or in most phases of care, including maternal inpatient postpartum care, maternal outpatient care after discharge, neonatal hospital care, and neonatal care after discharge.
The induction group did incur higher maternal inpatient intrapartum and delivery care costs (17%). However, these were offset by savings achieved during outpatient antenatal care (–47%). The assumption was additional costs of time spent on the labor ward might overwhelm cost savings elsewhere (reduced cesarean deliveries, fewer prenatal appointments and tests). “But this was not the case,” Dr. Einerson said.
Ultimately, the study was not large enough to find smaller differences in cost, he noted. It was only large enough to say that cost didn’t differentiate between arms with a margin of +/–7%. “A cost increase (or cost savings) with induction of 7% is meaningful over time and on a national scale,” Dr. Einerson explained.
Taken together, the two studies show that cost is not an insurmountable barrier to elective induced labor, Jeffrey L. Ecker, MD, and Mark A. Clapp, MD, MPH, wrote in an accompanying editorial (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136[1]:6-7).
“This will be especially true if we are innovative and creatively adapt our facilities and spaces, thinking about where and how some of the required care can be appropriately and more economically offered,” they noted.
“Specifically, strategies to safely reduce labor and delivery time for inductions of labor, including considering and studying outpatient cervical ripening, may make elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation even less costly and even more feasible to offer to all women,” suggested Dr. Ecker and Dr. Clapp, both at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
Dr. Hersh and coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures, and there was no external funding for their study. Dr. Einerson and most coauthors reported no relevant financial disclosures; one coauthor reported receiving funds from GestVision as a consultant, and another coauthor reported funds paid to her or her institution from some pharmaceutical companies when she was primary investigator on various trials or a consultant. This study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Neither Dr. Ecker nor Dr Clapp had any relevant financial disclosures or received any funding.
SOURCES: Hersh AR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003865; Einerson BD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003930.
Cost concerns have circulated regarding elective induction of labor, a method that’s become increasingly popular in the United States. Two studies in Obstetrics & Gynecology, however, offer no consensus on the cost burden of this method.
A retrospective analysis of a large cohort in California reported higher costs for induction, compared with spontaneous labor, after accounting for variables such as parity, mode of delivery, and gestational age. A prospective study of five Utah hospitals found no significant cost differences between induction and expectant management.
The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction versus Expectant Management), a multicenter study that compared elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation with spontaneous labor in low-risk nulliparous women, suggests that induction may have some benefits. While its researchers found no differences in perinatal outcomes, induction cases had fewer cesareans, fewer hypertensive disorders, and fewer newborns requiring respiratory support.
One key question that remains following ARRIVE is whether this practice should be implemented universally, Alyssa R. Hersh, MD, MPH, lead author of the California study, said in an interview. Quantifying the costs associated with elective labor is important because “health care in the United States is already much more expensive than in other countries, and [elective labor] could have a dramatic impact on annual health care costs.”
In a retrospective analysis, Dr. Hersh, of the Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and her colleagues examined data from more than 1.2 million women in California with singleton, nonanomalous births. They excluded for multiple factors such as medically indicated induction of labor, placenta previa, breech presentation, or planned cesarean delivery.
Estimating cost differences between elective induction and spontaneous labor for mothers and neonates, they stratified results by vaginal or cesarean delivery, parity, gestational age at delivery, and geographic location. Elective induced labor represented 15% of the overall cohort of 1.2 million women.
Among vaginal deliveries, median maternal hospitalization costs were $10,175 in the induction group and $9,462 in the spontaneous labor group. For cesarean deliveries, the median costs were $20,294 with induction of labor and $18,812 with spontaneous labor.
Costs of maternal hospitalization with elective induction of labor were significantly higher than that of spontaneous labor, regardless of parity, mode of delivery, and gestational age at delivery, the authors reported. Comparing costs at rural and urban areas, the induction group saw higher maternal hospitalization costs and longer lengths of stay regardless of scenario.
Neonatal care was the one metric that incurred lower costs and lengths of stay in the induction group. Fewer adverse outcomes in this group could explain this outlier. “However, because this is observational data, we cannot elucidate what exactly contributed to these decreased costs,” Dr. Hersh and colleagues noted.
Timeliness was another limitation. “It is important to note that our study was conducted between 2007 and 2011, and the patients undergoing elective induction of labor during those years may differ from women undergoing elective induction of labor currently,” the authors acknowledged.
Another study by Brett D. Einerson, MD, MPH, of the University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, and associates evaluated the actual hospital costs of patients undergoing elective induction and expectant management in a subset of patients from the ARRIVE trial.
“If, medically speaking, induction is equal to expectant management or has some benefit, as the larger ARRIVE trial suggests, we wanted to know: At what cost?” Dr. Einerson said in an interview.
Study participants hailed from five Utah hospitals within two health systems: the University of Utah Health and Intermountain Healthcare. Taking available data for 1,231 enrollees, investigators randomized 608 to labor induction and 623 to spontaneous labor. They measured actual hospital costs using advanced value-based analytics platforms at the Utah hospitals, comparing cost means and reporting the relative difference between induction and expectant management.
Overall, they found no significant differences between the mean total cost of elective induction and expectant management (adjusted mean difference, +4.7%). This was the case for other metrics: Costs did not vary among the five health systems or in most phases of care, including maternal inpatient postpartum care, maternal outpatient care after discharge, neonatal hospital care, and neonatal care after discharge.
The induction group did incur higher maternal inpatient intrapartum and delivery care costs (17%). However, these were offset by savings achieved during outpatient antenatal care (–47%). The assumption was additional costs of time spent on the labor ward might overwhelm cost savings elsewhere (reduced cesarean deliveries, fewer prenatal appointments and tests). “But this was not the case,” Dr. Einerson said.
Ultimately, the study was not large enough to find smaller differences in cost, he noted. It was only large enough to say that cost didn’t differentiate between arms with a margin of +/–7%. “A cost increase (or cost savings) with induction of 7% is meaningful over time and on a national scale,” Dr. Einerson explained.
Taken together, the two studies show that cost is not an insurmountable barrier to elective induced labor, Jeffrey L. Ecker, MD, and Mark A. Clapp, MD, MPH, wrote in an accompanying editorial (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136[1]:6-7).
“This will be especially true if we are innovative and creatively adapt our facilities and spaces, thinking about where and how some of the required care can be appropriately and more economically offered,” they noted.
“Specifically, strategies to safely reduce labor and delivery time for inductions of labor, including considering and studying outpatient cervical ripening, may make elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation even less costly and even more feasible to offer to all women,” suggested Dr. Ecker and Dr. Clapp, both at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
Dr. Hersh and coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures, and there was no external funding for their study. Dr. Einerson and most coauthors reported no relevant financial disclosures; one coauthor reported receiving funds from GestVision as a consultant, and another coauthor reported funds paid to her or her institution from some pharmaceutical companies when she was primary investigator on various trials or a consultant. This study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Neither Dr. Ecker nor Dr Clapp had any relevant financial disclosures or received any funding.
SOURCES: Hersh AR et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003865; Einerson BD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003930.
Liposomal bupivacaine excreted in breast milk, but levels appear safe
based on a prospective cohort study.
Over the course of 4 days, relative neonatal dosages of bupivacaine were less than 1%, remaining below the 10% threshold of concern, reported Hiba J. Mustafa, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues.
Liposomal bupivacaine can achieve up to 4 days of postcesarean pain control, which is significantly longer than the 8 hours provided by standard bupivacaine, the investigators wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology. But usage of the liposomal formulation has not been widespread, they noted, partly because of a lack of clinical studies evaluating breast milk transfer and neonatal safety.
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Mustafa and colleagues enrolled 30 healthy pregnant women scheduled to undergo cesarean birth at full term. All patients were aged 18-40 years, with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II. Exclusion criteria included a number of maternal and neonatal health concerns, such as sensitivity to local anesthetics, metabolic disorders, fetal anomaly, fetal growth restriction, and others.
The day of surgery, before the procedure, maternal blood samples were collected and used for baseline measurements.
Each woman received a spinal anesthetic including 150 mcg of morphine, 15 mcg of intrathecal fentanyl, and 1.4-1.6 mL of 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine hydrochloride. Within 30 minutes after birth, a bilateral transversus abdominus plane block was performed using 266 mg of 1.3% liposomal bupivacaine and 52 mg of 0.25% bupivacaine hydrochloride.
Using the block as time point zero, maternal blood and breast milk samples were collected at hour 2, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96. Sparse sampling was employed, such that participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to provide paired blood and milk samples at hour 2, 12, and 48; or hour 6, 24, 72, and 96. Bupivacaine was quantified in samples by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry.
Using these data, the investigators determined bupivacaine concentrations in plasma and milk, milk/plasma area under the curve (AUC) ratios, neonatal dosage, and relative neonatal dosage. In addition, adverse events in both mothers and neonates were recorded for 2 weeks post partum.
Mean bupivacaine concentrations peaked in breast milk at 6 hours, at 58 ng/mL. This peak was followed by a steady reduction to an “almost undetectable” level of 5.2 ng/mL at 96 hours. Maternal plasma levels peaked first at hour 6 (155.9 ng/mL), then again at hour 48 (225.8 ng/mL), followed by a steady decline until hour 96, when the level reached 80.6 ng/mL.
Relative mean concentrations of milk to plasma were 44%, 36%, 28%, and 18% at hour 2, 6, 12, and 24, respectively. AUC ratios were used to represent exposure across various time intervals. For instance, the AUC ratio for milk/plasma from hour 0 to hour 2 was 0.45. The AUC findings declined steadily until the final ratio, which spanned hour 0 to hour 96, at 0.15.
These AUC ratios allowed for calculation of neonatal dosage and relative neonatal dosage using an average daily milk intake of 150 mL/kg per day. For the longest range, spanning from hour 0 to hour 96, the neonatal dosage was 15,155.4 ng/kg, which translated to a relative neonatal dosage of 0.396%.
No mothers or neonates experienced adverse events.
“Bupivacaine was transferred into mother’s milk such that an exclusively breastfeeding neonate would ingest less than 1% (relative neonatal dosage) of the maternal dose,” the investigators wrote, noting that this falls safely below the acceptable threshold of 10%.
“Because bupivacaine is metabolized primarily in the liver, a neonate’s absorption will likely be even lower [than modeled] given the first-pass effect,” they added.
Based on these findings, Dr. Mustafa and colleagues concluded that “the level of bupivacaine ingested by the sucking neonate is acceptable and compatible with breastfeeding.”
Michael G. Ross MD, MPH, Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Public Health at Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, commented that, this study adds to the literature of drug excretion into breast milk. “For the vast majority of drugs with passive transfer from maternal plasma to breast milk, the effective dosages of exclusive breastfeeding neonates are approximately 5% of the maternal (oral) dose. In the present study, the authors demonstrated a relative neonatal dosage of less than 1%. This low value results from consequences of minimal maternal plasma absorption (in the present case from transversus abdominis injection), maternal volume of distribution, transfer into breast milk, and the volume of milk ingestion. These results should provide reassurance for the safety of breastfeeding term infants under the conditions of the study.
“There are a number of study concerns, including the inability to differentiate absorption of the spinal bupivacaine from the liposomal bupivacaine, the lack of paired maternal plasma and breast milk sample, and the lack of detail as to how much milk was expressed for each sample. Importantly, breast milk composition varies from foremilk to hindmilk. Thus, a single sample may not accurately reflect the composition ingested by the infant. The suggestion of two peaks in maternal plasma concentration was not demonstrated statistically and may be an artifact of the timing of spinal and liposomal injections, or the fact that different patients were studied at each time period.
“Most importantly, despite the demonstrated safety, the authors acknowledge conflicting results of clinical benefits of liposomal bupivacaine injection. As such, I recommend that postcesarean transversus abdominis blocks be performed only under institutional review board-approved study protocols,” said Dr. Ross, codirector of the Institute for Women’ and Children’s Health at the Lundquist Institute, Torrance, Calif.*
The study was funded by the Thrasher Research Fund. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Ross had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Mustafa et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jun 6. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003886.
*This article was updated 6/16/2020.
based on a prospective cohort study.
Over the course of 4 days, relative neonatal dosages of bupivacaine were less than 1%, remaining below the 10% threshold of concern, reported Hiba J. Mustafa, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues.
Liposomal bupivacaine can achieve up to 4 days of postcesarean pain control, which is significantly longer than the 8 hours provided by standard bupivacaine, the investigators wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology. But usage of the liposomal formulation has not been widespread, they noted, partly because of a lack of clinical studies evaluating breast milk transfer and neonatal safety.
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Mustafa and colleagues enrolled 30 healthy pregnant women scheduled to undergo cesarean birth at full term. All patients were aged 18-40 years, with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II. Exclusion criteria included a number of maternal and neonatal health concerns, such as sensitivity to local anesthetics, metabolic disorders, fetal anomaly, fetal growth restriction, and others.
The day of surgery, before the procedure, maternal blood samples were collected and used for baseline measurements.
Each woman received a spinal anesthetic including 150 mcg of morphine, 15 mcg of intrathecal fentanyl, and 1.4-1.6 mL of 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine hydrochloride. Within 30 minutes after birth, a bilateral transversus abdominus plane block was performed using 266 mg of 1.3% liposomal bupivacaine and 52 mg of 0.25% bupivacaine hydrochloride.
Using the block as time point zero, maternal blood and breast milk samples were collected at hour 2, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96. Sparse sampling was employed, such that participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to provide paired blood and milk samples at hour 2, 12, and 48; or hour 6, 24, 72, and 96. Bupivacaine was quantified in samples by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry.
Using these data, the investigators determined bupivacaine concentrations in plasma and milk, milk/plasma area under the curve (AUC) ratios, neonatal dosage, and relative neonatal dosage. In addition, adverse events in both mothers and neonates were recorded for 2 weeks post partum.
Mean bupivacaine concentrations peaked in breast milk at 6 hours, at 58 ng/mL. This peak was followed by a steady reduction to an “almost undetectable” level of 5.2 ng/mL at 96 hours. Maternal plasma levels peaked first at hour 6 (155.9 ng/mL), then again at hour 48 (225.8 ng/mL), followed by a steady decline until hour 96, when the level reached 80.6 ng/mL.
Relative mean concentrations of milk to plasma were 44%, 36%, 28%, and 18% at hour 2, 6, 12, and 24, respectively. AUC ratios were used to represent exposure across various time intervals. For instance, the AUC ratio for milk/plasma from hour 0 to hour 2 was 0.45. The AUC findings declined steadily until the final ratio, which spanned hour 0 to hour 96, at 0.15.
These AUC ratios allowed for calculation of neonatal dosage and relative neonatal dosage using an average daily milk intake of 150 mL/kg per day. For the longest range, spanning from hour 0 to hour 96, the neonatal dosage was 15,155.4 ng/kg, which translated to a relative neonatal dosage of 0.396%.
No mothers or neonates experienced adverse events.
“Bupivacaine was transferred into mother’s milk such that an exclusively breastfeeding neonate would ingest less than 1% (relative neonatal dosage) of the maternal dose,” the investigators wrote, noting that this falls safely below the acceptable threshold of 10%.
“Because bupivacaine is metabolized primarily in the liver, a neonate’s absorption will likely be even lower [than modeled] given the first-pass effect,” they added.
Based on these findings, Dr. Mustafa and colleagues concluded that “the level of bupivacaine ingested by the sucking neonate is acceptable and compatible with breastfeeding.”
Michael G. Ross MD, MPH, Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Public Health at Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, commented that, this study adds to the literature of drug excretion into breast milk. “For the vast majority of drugs with passive transfer from maternal plasma to breast milk, the effective dosages of exclusive breastfeeding neonates are approximately 5% of the maternal (oral) dose. In the present study, the authors demonstrated a relative neonatal dosage of less than 1%. This low value results from consequences of minimal maternal plasma absorption (in the present case from transversus abdominis injection), maternal volume of distribution, transfer into breast milk, and the volume of milk ingestion. These results should provide reassurance for the safety of breastfeeding term infants under the conditions of the study.
“There are a number of study concerns, including the inability to differentiate absorption of the spinal bupivacaine from the liposomal bupivacaine, the lack of paired maternal plasma and breast milk sample, and the lack of detail as to how much milk was expressed for each sample. Importantly, breast milk composition varies from foremilk to hindmilk. Thus, a single sample may not accurately reflect the composition ingested by the infant. The suggestion of two peaks in maternal plasma concentration was not demonstrated statistically and may be an artifact of the timing of spinal and liposomal injections, or the fact that different patients were studied at each time period.
“Most importantly, despite the demonstrated safety, the authors acknowledge conflicting results of clinical benefits of liposomal bupivacaine injection. As such, I recommend that postcesarean transversus abdominis blocks be performed only under institutional review board-approved study protocols,” said Dr. Ross, codirector of the Institute for Women’ and Children’s Health at the Lundquist Institute, Torrance, Calif.*
The study was funded by the Thrasher Research Fund. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Ross had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Mustafa et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jun 6. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003886.
*This article was updated 6/16/2020.
based on a prospective cohort study.
Over the course of 4 days, relative neonatal dosages of bupivacaine were less than 1%, remaining below the 10% threshold of concern, reported Hiba J. Mustafa, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues.
Liposomal bupivacaine can achieve up to 4 days of postcesarean pain control, which is significantly longer than the 8 hours provided by standard bupivacaine, the investigators wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology. But usage of the liposomal formulation has not been widespread, they noted, partly because of a lack of clinical studies evaluating breast milk transfer and neonatal safety.
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Mustafa and colleagues enrolled 30 healthy pregnant women scheduled to undergo cesarean birth at full term. All patients were aged 18-40 years, with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II. Exclusion criteria included a number of maternal and neonatal health concerns, such as sensitivity to local anesthetics, metabolic disorders, fetal anomaly, fetal growth restriction, and others.
The day of surgery, before the procedure, maternal blood samples were collected and used for baseline measurements.
Each woman received a spinal anesthetic including 150 mcg of morphine, 15 mcg of intrathecal fentanyl, and 1.4-1.6 mL of 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine hydrochloride. Within 30 minutes after birth, a bilateral transversus abdominus plane block was performed using 266 mg of 1.3% liposomal bupivacaine and 52 mg of 0.25% bupivacaine hydrochloride.
Using the block as time point zero, maternal blood and breast milk samples were collected at hour 2, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96. Sparse sampling was employed, such that participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to provide paired blood and milk samples at hour 2, 12, and 48; or hour 6, 24, 72, and 96. Bupivacaine was quantified in samples by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry.
Using these data, the investigators determined bupivacaine concentrations in plasma and milk, milk/plasma area under the curve (AUC) ratios, neonatal dosage, and relative neonatal dosage. In addition, adverse events in both mothers and neonates were recorded for 2 weeks post partum.
Mean bupivacaine concentrations peaked in breast milk at 6 hours, at 58 ng/mL. This peak was followed by a steady reduction to an “almost undetectable” level of 5.2 ng/mL at 96 hours. Maternal plasma levels peaked first at hour 6 (155.9 ng/mL), then again at hour 48 (225.8 ng/mL), followed by a steady decline until hour 96, when the level reached 80.6 ng/mL.
Relative mean concentrations of milk to plasma were 44%, 36%, 28%, and 18% at hour 2, 6, 12, and 24, respectively. AUC ratios were used to represent exposure across various time intervals. For instance, the AUC ratio for milk/plasma from hour 0 to hour 2 was 0.45. The AUC findings declined steadily until the final ratio, which spanned hour 0 to hour 96, at 0.15.
These AUC ratios allowed for calculation of neonatal dosage and relative neonatal dosage using an average daily milk intake of 150 mL/kg per day. For the longest range, spanning from hour 0 to hour 96, the neonatal dosage was 15,155.4 ng/kg, which translated to a relative neonatal dosage of 0.396%.
No mothers or neonates experienced adverse events.
“Bupivacaine was transferred into mother’s milk such that an exclusively breastfeeding neonate would ingest less than 1% (relative neonatal dosage) of the maternal dose,” the investigators wrote, noting that this falls safely below the acceptable threshold of 10%.
“Because bupivacaine is metabolized primarily in the liver, a neonate’s absorption will likely be even lower [than modeled] given the first-pass effect,” they added.
Based on these findings, Dr. Mustafa and colleagues concluded that “the level of bupivacaine ingested by the sucking neonate is acceptable and compatible with breastfeeding.”
Michael G. Ross MD, MPH, Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Public Health at Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, commented that, this study adds to the literature of drug excretion into breast milk. “For the vast majority of drugs with passive transfer from maternal plasma to breast milk, the effective dosages of exclusive breastfeeding neonates are approximately 5% of the maternal (oral) dose. In the present study, the authors demonstrated a relative neonatal dosage of less than 1%. This low value results from consequences of minimal maternal plasma absorption (in the present case from transversus abdominis injection), maternal volume of distribution, transfer into breast milk, and the volume of milk ingestion. These results should provide reassurance for the safety of breastfeeding term infants under the conditions of the study.
“There are a number of study concerns, including the inability to differentiate absorption of the spinal bupivacaine from the liposomal bupivacaine, the lack of paired maternal plasma and breast milk sample, and the lack of detail as to how much milk was expressed for each sample. Importantly, breast milk composition varies from foremilk to hindmilk. Thus, a single sample may not accurately reflect the composition ingested by the infant. The suggestion of two peaks in maternal plasma concentration was not demonstrated statistically and may be an artifact of the timing of spinal and liposomal injections, or the fact that different patients were studied at each time period.
“Most importantly, despite the demonstrated safety, the authors acknowledge conflicting results of clinical benefits of liposomal bupivacaine injection. As such, I recommend that postcesarean transversus abdominis blocks be performed only under institutional review board-approved study protocols,” said Dr. Ross, codirector of the Institute for Women’ and Children’s Health at the Lundquist Institute, Torrance, Calif.*
The study was funded by the Thrasher Research Fund. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Ross had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Mustafa et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jun 6. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003886.
*This article was updated 6/16/2020.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Food deserts linked to greater pregnancy morbidity
according to a retrospective observational study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
Previous research has linked so-called “food deserts” to higher systolic blood pressure and an increased risk of cardiovascular events in people with coronary artery disease, the authors note.
“Research on populations in the United States confirm that increased access to supermarkets is associated with lower prevalence of overweight and obesity, and improved fruit and vegetable consumption,” said Matthew J. Tipton, MD, of Loyola University Medical Center in Chicago, and colleagues.
“With our study showing an association between living in a food desert and increased pregnancy morbidity, it is our hope that with future work, an unhealthy food environment could prove to be a modifiable factor that does contribute to disparities in pregnancy morbidity,” the authors said. “Perhaps then, one could question whether greater access to healthier foods could reduce unexplained pregnancy morbidity for this population of patients,” paving the way toward developing interventions that can then improve vulnerable women’s health.
The researchers reviewed the electronic medical records of all the pregnant patients who delivered at Loyola University Medical Center in 2014. To determine who lived in a food desert, the authors relied on data about grocery food availability within Census tracts from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Access Research Atlas.
Dr. Tipton and associates defined living in a food desert as living in a low-income Census tract “where at least 33% of the population is more than half a mile from the nearest large grocery store for an urban area or more than 10 miles for a rural area.” Low-income Census tracts are those where “at least 20% of the population has a median family income at or below 80% of the metropolitan area or state median income.”
The authors compared women’s residence within a food desert (or not) with six different pregnancy morbidities: preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, prelabor rupture of membranes, preterm labor, and intrauterine growth restriction.
Among 1,001 deliveries, about 1 in 5 women (20%) lived in a food desert. These women tended to be slightly younger than those not living in a food desert (28 vs. 30 years old), and a higher proportion of women in food deserts were black (44%) rather than white (32%). They also had a lower average income ($44,694) than those not living in food deserts ($67,005).
After adjustment for age, race, and medical insurance type (private, Medicaid, other), the researchers found that women who lived in a food desert had 1.6 times greater odds of pregnancy comorbidity than if they did not (odds ratio, 1.64; P = .004). Nearly half the women living in food deserts had any type of comorbidity (47%), compared with just over a third of women who did not (36%).
Among the six comorbidities studied, preterm rupture of membranes was significantly different before adjustment between those who lived in food deserts (16%) and those who did not (10%) (P = .015). An association with preeclampsia had borderline significance before adjustment: 13% of women in food deserts had preeclampsia, compared with 9% of women not (P = .049). After adjustment for age, race, and medical insurance, however, neither of these associations retained statistically significant differences.
The study was limited by leaving out consideration of other factors besides local food access that might influence pregnancy health, including “quality of patient-doctor communication, implicit bias, structural racism, and stress owing to concern for neighborhood safety,” Dr. Tipton and associates said.
“An additional, albeit less obvious factor that may be unique to patients suffering disproportionately from obstetric morbidity is exposure to toxic elements,” the researchers add. “It has been shown in a previous study that low-income, predominately black communities of pregnant women may suffer disproportionately from lead or arsenic exposure.”
The study did not note external funding, and the authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Tipton MJ et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003868.
according to a retrospective observational study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
Previous research has linked so-called “food deserts” to higher systolic blood pressure and an increased risk of cardiovascular events in people with coronary artery disease, the authors note.
“Research on populations in the United States confirm that increased access to supermarkets is associated with lower prevalence of overweight and obesity, and improved fruit and vegetable consumption,” said Matthew J. Tipton, MD, of Loyola University Medical Center in Chicago, and colleagues.
“With our study showing an association between living in a food desert and increased pregnancy morbidity, it is our hope that with future work, an unhealthy food environment could prove to be a modifiable factor that does contribute to disparities in pregnancy morbidity,” the authors said. “Perhaps then, one could question whether greater access to healthier foods could reduce unexplained pregnancy morbidity for this population of patients,” paving the way toward developing interventions that can then improve vulnerable women’s health.
The researchers reviewed the electronic medical records of all the pregnant patients who delivered at Loyola University Medical Center in 2014. To determine who lived in a food desert, the authors relied on data about grocery food availability within Census tracts from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Access Research Atlas.
Dr. Tipton and associates defined living in a food desert as living in a low-income Census tract “where at least 33% of the population is more than half a mile from the nearest large grocery store for an urban area or more than 10 miles for a rural area.” Low-income Census tracts are those where “at least 20% of the population has a median family income at or below 80% of the metropolitan area or state median income.”
The authors compared women’s residence within a food desert (or not) with six different pregnancy morbidities: preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, prelabor rupture of membranes, preterm labor, and intrauterine growth restriction.
Among 1,001 deliveries, about 1 in 5 women (20%) lived in a food desert. These women tended to be slightly younger than those not living in a food desert (28 vs. 30 years old), and a higher proportion of women in food deserts were black (44%) rather than white (32%). They also had a lower average income ($44,694) than those not living in food deserts ($67,005).
After adjustment for age, race, and medical insurance type (private, Medicaid, other), the researchers found that women who lived in a food desert had 1.6 times greater odds of pregnancy comorbidity than if they did not (odds ratio, 1.64; P = .004). Nearly half the women living in food deserts had any type of comorbidity (47%), compared with just over a third of women who did not (36%).
Among the six comorbidities studied, preterm rupture of membranes was significantly different before adjustment between those who lived in food deserts (16%) and those who did not (10%) (P = .015). An association with preeclampsia had borderline significance before adjustment: 13% of women in food deserts had preeclampsia, compared with 9% of women not (P = .049). After adjustment for age, race, and medical insurance, however, neither of these associations retained statistically significant differences.
The study was limited by leaving out consideration of other factors besides local food access that might influence pregnancy health, including “quality of patient-doctor communication, implicit bias, structural racism, and stress owing to concern for neighborhood safety,” Dr. Tipton and associates said.
“An additional, albeit less obvious factor that may be unique to patients suffering disproportionately from obstetric morbidity is exposure to toxic elements,” the researchers add. “It has been shown in a previous study that low-income, predominately black communities of pregnant women may suffer disproportionately from lead or arsenic exposure.”
The study did not note external funding, and the authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Tipton MJ et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003868.
according to a retrospective observational study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
Previous research has linked so-called “food deserts” to higher systolic blood pressure and an increased risk of cardiovascular events in people with coronary artery disease, the authors note.
“Research on populations in the United States confirm that increased access to supermarkets is associated with lower prevalence of overweight and obesity, and improved fruit and vegetable consumption,” said Matthew J. Tipton, MD, of Loyola University Medical Center in Chicago, and colleagues.
“With our study showing an association between living in a food desert and increased pregnancy morbidity, it is our hope that with future work, an unhealthy food environment could prove to be a modifiable factor that does contribute to disparities in pregnancy morbidity,” the authors said. “Perhaps then, one could question whether greater access to healthier foods could reduce unexplained pregnancy morbidity for this population of patients,” paving the way toward developing interventions that can then improve vulnerable women’s health.
The researchers reviewed the electronic medical records of all the pregnant patients who delivered at Loyola University Medical Center in 2014. To determine who lived in a food desert, the authors relied on data about grocery food availability within Census tracts from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Access Research Atlas.
Dr. Tipton and associates defined living in a food desert as living in a low-income Census tract “where at least 33% of the population is more than half a mile from the nearest large grocery store for an urban area or more than 10 miles for a rural area.” Low-income Census tracts are those where “at least 20% of the population has a median family income at or below 80% of the metropolitan area or state median income.”
The authors compared women’s residence within a food desert (or not) with six different pregnancy morbidities: preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, prelabor rupture of membranes, preterm labor, and intrauterine growth restriction.
Among 1,001 deliveries, about 1 in 5 women (20%) lived in a food desert. These women tended to be slightly younger than those not living in a food desert (28 vs. 30 years old), and a higher proportion of women in food deserts were black (44%) rather than white (32%). They also had a lower average income ($44,694) than those not living in food deserts ($67,005).
After adjustment for age, race, and medical insurance type (private, Medicaid, other), the researchers found that women who lived in a food desert had 1.6 times greater odds of pregnancy comorbidity than if they did not (odds ratio, 1.64; P = .004). Nearly half the women living in food deserts had any type of comorbidity (47%), compared with just over a third of women who did not (36%).
Among the six comorbidities studied, preterm rupture of membranes was significantly different before adjustment between those who lived in food deserts (16%) and those who did not (10%) (P = .015). An association with preeclampsia had borderline significance before adjustment: 13% of women in food deserts had preeclampsia, compared with 9% of women not (P = .049). After adjustment for age, race, and medical insurance, however, neither of these associations retained statistically significant differences.
The study was limited by leaving out consideration of other factors besides local food access that might influence pregnancy health, including “quality of patient-doctor communication, implicit bias, structural racism, and stress owing to concern for neighborhood safety,” Dr. Tipton and associates said.
“An additional, albeit less obvious factor that may be unique to patients suffering disproportionately from obstetric morbidity is exposure to toxic elements,” the researchers add. “It has been shown in a previous study that low-income, predominately black communities of pregnant women may suffer disproportionately from lead or arsenic exposure.”
The study did not note external funding, and the authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Tipton MJ et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003868.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Does cultural tailoring of sexual health programs lead to safer behavior?
including abstinence, condom use, and number of sex partners, a meta-analysis of 12 studies suggests.
Furthermore, cultural tailoring may contribute to a program’s success, the data indicate.
“It is important that culturally tailored sexual health programs be available to Hispanic communities across the United States,” the study authors stated in Pediatrics.
To examine the effects of sexual health interventions on behavioral outcomes among Hispanic adolescents and factors that may influence the success of an intervention, Reina Evans, a doctoral student in the department of psychology at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and colleagues systemically reviewed published studies that included Hispanic adolescents in the United States. Included studies evaluated a sexual health intervention using an experimental or quasiexperimental design and assessed a behavioral outcome.
The researchers synthesized effect sizes from 12 studies that included 4,673 Hispanic adolescents. “As the indicator of effect size, the standardized mean difference, Cohen’s d, was used,” they said. Effect size was interpreted as small at 0.20, medium at 0.50, and large at 0.80.
Sexual health interventions improved abstinence (d = 0.15), condom use (d = 0.44), number of sex partners (d = –0.19), and sexual health knowledge (d = 0.40), compared with control conditions.
Eight of the 12 interventions incorporated Hispanic-specific practices and values such as familialism into the intervention materials. Culturally tailored interventions produced greater change in condom use, compared with interventions that were not culturally tailored. One intervention with a large effect on condom use was developed by researchers in collaboration with community members, the authors said. Another program with a large effect on condom use was designed for Hispanic families.
Ten of the 12 studies included males and females, and two included only females. Intervention dose ranged from less than 10 hours of program content to more than 20 hours of content.
Definitions of abstinence and time frames for reporting recent condom use varied across studies, the researchers noted. Data about patient characteristics, such as the percentage of participants born in the United States, and pregnancy outcomes were limited. These domains could be areas of future research.
“Latinx adolescents are disproportionately burdened with unplanned pregnancy and STIs [sexually transmitted infections]. In this meta-analysis, it is shown that sexual health interventions can play a role in combating these health disparities,” Ms. Evans and associates said.
Among Hispanic adolescents, persistent disparities in sexual and reproductive health “remain a national public health priority,” and “strengthening the effects of future ... interventions for Hispanic adolescents is needed,” said Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, PhD, MPH, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Guilamo-Ramos is a professor of social work and director and founder of the Center for Latino Adolescent and Family Health at New York University.
“Evans et al. highlighted that reporting on the foreign-born participant proportions was incomplete across studies, thereby excluding this clinical heterogeneity domain from formal moderation analyses,” said Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and colleagues. People who develop Hispanic sexual and reproductive health interventions may consider whether this domain or other domains moderate intervention effectiveness.
Although sensitivity analyses focused on several potential sources of bias, “other domains of potential methodologic heterogeneity, such as refusal bias, differential attrition, or information bias, remained unaccounted for,” they said.
“Attention to clinical, methodologic, and statistical heterogeneity across studies can yield insights into factors associated with bolstering intervention effectiveness. Cultural tailoring to increase the effectiveness of condom interventions for Hispanic adolescents is one such intervention effect modifier,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and associates concluded.
The study authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The research was supported by the Doug Kirby Adolescent Sexual Health Research Grant from the Rural Center for AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, Indiana University School of Public Health–Bloomington, and the Center for Family and Community Engagement, North Carolina State University. The editorialists are supported by the William T. Grant Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. In addition, Dr. Guilamo-Ramos has received grants and personal fees from ViiV Healthcare outside the submitted work and serves as a member of the U.S. Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS and as the vice chair of the board of directors of the Latino Commission on AIDS. His coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCES: Evans R et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3572; Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1406.
including abstinence, condom use, and number of sex partners, a meta-analysis of 12 studies suggests.
Furthermore, cultural tailoring may contribute to a program’s success, the data indicate.
“It is important that culturally tailored sexual health programs be available to Hispanic communities across the United States,” the study authors stated in Pediatrics.
To examine the effects of sexual health interventions on behavioral outcomes among Hispanic adolescents and factors that may influence the success of an intervention, Reina Evans, a doctoral student in the department of psychology at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and colleagues systemically reviewed published studies that included Hispanic adolescents in the United States. Included studies evaluated a sexual health intervention using an experimental or quasiexperimental design and assessed a behavioral outcome.
The researchers synthesized effect sizes from 12 studies that included 4,673 Hispanic adolescents. “As the indicator of effect size, the standardized mean difference, Cohen’s d, was used,” they said. Effect size was interpreted as small at 0.20, medium at 0.50, and large at 0.80.
Sexual health interventions improved abstinence (d = 0.15), condom use (d = 0.44), number of sex partners (d = –0.19), and sexual health knowledge (d = 0.40), compared with control conditions.
Eight of the 12 interventions incorporated Hispanic-specific practices and values such as familialism into the intervention materials. Culturally tailored interventions produced greater change in condom use, compared with interventions that were not culturally tailored. One intervention with a large effect on condom use was developed by researchers in collaboration with community members, the authors said. Another program with a large effect on condom use was designed for Hispanic families.
Ten of the 12 studies included males and females, and two included only females. Intervention dose ranged from less than 10 hours of program content to more than 20 hours of content.
Definitions of abstinence and time frames for reporting recent condom use varied across studies, the researchers noted. Data about patient characteristics, such as the percentage of participants born in the United States, and pregnancy outcomes were limited. These domains could be areas of future research.
“Latinx adolescents are disproportionately burdened with unplanned pregnancy and STIs [sexually transmitted infections]. In this meta-analysis, it is shown that sexual health interventions can play a role in combating these health disparities,” Ms. Evans and associates said.
Among Hispanic adolescents, persistent disparities in sexual and reproductive health “remain a national public health priority,” and “strengthening the effects of future ... interventions for Hispanic adolescents is needed,” said Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, PhD, MPH, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Guilamo-Ramos is a professor of social work and director and founder of the Center for Latino Adolescent and Family Health at New York University.
“Evans et al. highlighted that reporting on the foreign-born participant proportions was incomplete across studies, thereby excluding this clinical heterogeneity domain from formal moderation analyses,” said Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and colleagues. People who develop Hispanic sexual and reproductive health interventions may consider whether this domain or other domains moderate intervention effectiveness.
Although sensitivity analyses focused on several potential sources of bias, “other domains of potential methodologic heterogeneity, such as refusal bias, differential attrition, or information bias, remained unaccounted for,” they said.
“Attention to clinical, methodologic, and statistical heterogeneity across studies can yield insights into factors associated with bolstering intervention effectiveness. Cultural tailoring to increase the effectiveness of condom interventions for Hispanic adolescents is one such intervention effect modifier,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and associates concluded.
The study authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The research was supported by the Doug Kirby Adolescent Sexual Health Research Grant from the Rural Center for AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, Indiana University School of Public Health–Bloomington, and the Center for Family and Community Engagement, North Carolina State University. The editorialists are supported by the William T. Grant Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. In addition, Dr. Guilamo-Ramos has received grants and personal fees from ViiV Healthcare outside the submitted work and serves as a member of the U.S. Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS and as the vice chair of the board of directors of the Latino Commission on AIDS. His coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCES: Evans R et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3572; Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1406.
including abstinence, condom use, and number of sex partners, a meta-analysis of 12 studies suggests.
Furthermore, cultural tailoring may contribute to a program’s success, the data indicate.
“It is important that culturally tailored sexual health programs be available to Hispanic communities across the United States,” the study authors stated in Pediatrics.
To examine the effects of sexual health interventions on behavioral outcomes among Hispanic adolescents and factors that may influence the success of an intervention, Reina Evans, a doctoral student in the department of psychology at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and colleagues systemically reviewed published studies that included Hispanic adolescents in the United States. Included studies evaluated a sexual health intervention using an experimental or quasiexperimental design and assessed a behavioral outcome.
The researchers synthesized effect sizes from 12 studies that included 4,673 Hispanic adolescents. “As the indicator of effect size, the standardized mean difference, Cohen’s d, was used,” they said. Effect size was interpreted as small at 0.20, medium at 0.50, and large at 0.80.
Sexual health interventions improved abstinence (d = 0.15), condom use (d = 0.44), number of sex partners (d = –0.19), and sexual health knowledge (d = 0.40), compared with control conditions.
Eight of the 12 interventions incorporated Hispanic-specific practices and values such as familialism into the intervention materials. Culturally tailored interventions produced greater change in condom use, compared with interventions that were not culturally tailored. One intervention with a large effect on condom use was developed by researchers in collaboration with community members, the authors said. Another program with a large effect on condom use was designed for Hispanic families.
Ten of the 12 studies included males and females, and two included only females. Intervention dose ranged from less than 10 hours of program content to more than 20 hours of content.
Definitions of abstinence and time frames for reporting recent condom use varied across studies, the researchers noted. Data about patient characteristics, such as the percentage of participants born in the United States, and pregnancy outcomes were limited. These domains could be areas of future research.
“Latinx adolescents are disproportionately burdened with unplanned pregnancy and STIs [sexually transmitted infections]. In this meta-analysis, it is shown that sexual health interventions can play a role in combating these health disparities,” Ms. Evans and associates said.
Among Hispanic adolescents, persistent disparities in sexual and reproductive health “remain a national public health priority,” and “strengthening the effects of future ... interventions for Hispanic adolescents is needed,” said Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, PhD, MPH, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Guilamo-Ramos is a professor of social work and director and founder of the Center for Latino Adolescent and Family Health at New York University.
“Evans et al. highlighted that reporting on the foreign-born participant proportions was incomplete across studies, thereby excluding this clinical heterogeneity domain from formal moderation analyses,” said Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and colleagues. People who develop Hispanic sexual and reproductive health interventions may consider whether this domain or other domains moderate intervention effectiveness.
Although sensitivity analyses focused on several potential sources of bias, “other domains of potential methodologic heterogeneity, such as refusal bias, differential attrition, or information bias, remained unaccounted for,” they said.
“Attention to clinical, methodologic, and statistical heterogeneity across studies can yield insights into factors associated with bolstering intervention effectiveness. Cultural tailoring to increase the effectiveness of condom interventions for Hispanic adolescents is one such intervention effect modifier,” Dr. Guilamo-Ramos and associates concluded.
The study authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The research was supported by the Doug Kirby Adolescent Sexual Health Research Grant from the Rural Center for AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, Indiana University School of Public Health–Bloomington, and the Center for Family and Community Engagement, North Carolina State University. The editorialists are supported by the William T. Grant Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. In addition, Dr. Guilamo-Ramos has received grants and personal fees from ViiV Healthcare outside the submitted work and serves as a member of the U.S. Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS and as the vice chair of the board of directors of the Latino Commission on AIDS. His coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCES: Evans R et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3572; Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1406.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Key clinical point: Among Hispanic adolescents, sexual health interventions have a small but significant effect on improving safe sexual behavior. Cultural tailoring may contribute to a program’s success.
Major finding: Sexual health interventions improved abstinence (d = 0.15), condom use (d = 0.44), number of sex partners (d = –0.19), and sexual health knowledge (d = 0.40), compared with control conditions.
Study details: A meta-analysis of 12 studies with 4,673 participants.
Disclosures: The study authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The research was supported by the Doug Kirby Adolescent Sexual Health Research Grant from the Rural Center for AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, Indiana University School of Public Health–Bloomington, and the Center for Family and Community Engagement, North Carolina State University.
Source: Evans R et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3572.
Large study finds no link between gluten, IBD risk
Among women without celiac disease, dietary gluten intake was not associated with the risk of developing either Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, investigators reported.
The findings spanned subgroups stratified by age, body mass index, smoking status, and whether individuals primarily consumed refined or whole grains, said Emily Walsh Lopes, MD, gastroenterology clinical and research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. She and associates reported the combined analysis of the prospective Nurses’ Health Study and Nurses’ Health Study II in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week.®
“Avoidance of dietary gluten is common, and many patients attribute gastrointestinal symptoms to gluten intake,” Dr. Lopes said in an interview. “Though our findings warrant further study, the results suggest to patients and providers that eating gluten does not increase a person’s chance of getting diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease.”
Prior studies have found that many individuals with inflammatory bowel disease avoid gluten and report subsequent improvements in gastrointestinal symptoms, even if they do not have celiac disease. However, it remains unclear whether dietary gluten is a risk factor for new-onset inflammatory bowel disease.
To address this question, Dr. Lopes and associates analyzed data collected from 165,327 women who took part in the Nurses’ Health Study (1986 to 2016) or the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991 through 2017). None of the women had a preexisting diagnosis of celiac disease or inflammatory bowel disease. Dietary gluten intake was estimated based on food frequency questionnaires completed by the women at baseline and every 4 years. The researchers also reviewed medical records to confirm self-reported cases of new-onset ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease.
Over 4.02 million person-years of follow-up, 277 women developed Crohn’s disease and 359 developed ulcerative colitis. Gluten intake was not associated with the risk of either type of inflammatory bowel disease, even after the researchers controlled for multiple demographic and clinical risk factors.
After submitting their abstract, Dr. Lopes and coinvestigators expanded the dataset to include a large cohort of men from the prospective Health Professionals Follow-up Study. The final pooled cohort included more than 208,000 women and men followed for more than 20 years. Through the end of follow-up, the researchers documented 337 cases of Crohn’s disease and 446 cases of ulcerative colitis. “Inclusion of the male cohort in the pooled analysis did not materially change our estimates,” Dr. Lopes told MDedge. “That is, no association was seen between gluten intake and risk of either Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis in the final cohort.”
She noted that the findings cannot be extrapolated to individuals who are already diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease. “It is possible that different mechanisms exist to explain how gluten intake impacts those already diagnosed with IBD, and this topic warrants further study,” she said. Also, because the three cohort studies were observational, they are subject to bias. “While we tried to account for this in our analyses, residual bias may still exist.”
Dr. Lopes reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Walsh Lopes E et al. DDW 2020, abstract 847.
Among women without celiac disease, dietary gluten intake was not associated with the risk of developing either Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, investigators reported.
The findings spanned subgroups stratified by age, body mass index, smoking status, and whether individuals primarily consumed refined or whole grains, said Emily Walsh Lopes, MD, gastroenterology clinical and research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. She and associates reported the combined analysis of the prospective Nurses’ Health Study and Nurses’ Health Study II in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week.®
“Avoidance of dietary gluten is common, and many patients attribute gastrointestinal symptoms to gluten intake,” Dr. Lopes said in an interview. “Though our findings warrant further study, the results suggest to patients and providers that eating gluten does not increase a person’s chance of getting diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease.”
Prior studies have found that many individuals with inflammatory bowel disease avoid gluten and report subsequent improvements in gastrointestinal symptoms, even if they do not have celiac disease. However, it remains unclear whether dietary gluten is a risk factor for new-onset inflammatory bowel disease.
To address this question, Dr. Lopes and associates analyzed data collected from 165,327 women who took part in the Nurses’ Health Study (1986 to 2016) or the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991 through 2017). None of the women had a preexisting diagnosis of celiac disease or inflammatory bowel disease. Dietary gluten intake was estimated based on food frequency questionnaires completed by the women at baseline and every 4 years. The researchers also reviewed medical records to confirm self-reported cases of new-onset ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease.
Over 4.02 million person-years of follow-up, 277 women developed Crohn’s disease and 359 developed ulcerative colitis. Gluten intake was not associated with the risk of either type of inflammatory bowel disease, even after the researchers controlled for multiple demographic and clinical risk factors.
After submitting their abstract, Dr. Lopes and coinvestigators expanded the dataset to include a large cohort of men from the prospective Health Professionals Follow-up Study. The final pooled cohort included more than 208,000 women and men followed for more than 20 years. Through the end of follow-up, the researchers documented 337 cases of Crohn’s disease and 446 cases of ulcerative colitis. “Inclusion of the male cohort in the pooled analysis did not materially change our estimates,” Dr. Lopes told MDedge. “That is, no association was seen between gluten intake and risk of either Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis in the final cohort.”
She noted that the findings cannot be extrapolated to individuals who are already diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease. “It is possible that different mechanisms exist to explain how gluten intake impacts those already diagnosed with IBD, and this topic warrants further study,” she said. Also, because the three cohort studies were observational, they are subject to bias. “While we tried to account for this in our analyses, residual bias may still exist.”
Dr. Lopes reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Walsh Lopes E et al. DDW 2020, abstract 847.
Among women without celiac disease, dietary gluten intake was not associated with the risk of developing either Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, investigators reported.
The findings spanned subgroups stratified by age, body mass index, smoking status, and whether individuals primarily consumed refined or whole grains, said Emily Walsh Lopes, MD, gastroenterology clinical and research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. She and associates reported the combined analysis of the prospective Nurses’ Health Study and Nurses’ Health Study II in an abstract released as part of the annual Digestive Disease Week.®
“Avoidance of dietary gluten is common, and many patients attribute gastrointestinal symptoms to gluten intake,” Dr. Lopes said in an interview. “Though our findings warrant further study, the results suggest to patients and providers that eating gluten does not increase a person’s chance of getting diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease.”
Prior studies have found that many individuals with inflammatory bowel disease avoid gluten and report subsequent improvements in gastrointestinal symptoms, even if they do not have celiac disease. However, it remains unclear whether dietary gluten is a risk factor for new-onset inflammatory bowel disease.
To address this question, Dr. Lopes and associates analyzed data collected from 165,327 women who took part in the Nurses’ Health Study (1986 to 2016) or the Nurses’ Health Study II (1991 through 2017). None of the women had a preexisting diagnosis of celiac disease or inflammatory bowel disease. Dietary gluten intake was estimated based on food frequency questionnaires completed by the women at baseline and every 4 years. The researchers also reviewed medical records to confirm self-reported cases of new-onset ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease.
Over 4.02 million person-years of follow-up, 277 women developed Crohn’s disease and 359 developed ulcerative colitis. Gluten intake was not associated with the risk of either type of inflammatory bowel disease, even after the researchers controlled for multiple demographic and clinical risk factors.
After submitting their abstract, Dr. Lopes and coinvestigators expanded the dataset to include a large cohort of men from the prospective Health Professionals Follow-up Study. The final pooled cohort included more than 208,000 women and men followed for more than 20 years. Through the end of follow-up, the researchers documented 337 cases of Crohn’s disease and 446 cases of ulcerative colitis. “Inclusion of the male cohort in the pooled analysis did not materially change our estimates,” Dr. Lopes told MDedge. “That is, no association was seen between gluten intake and risk of either Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis in the final cohort.”
She noted that the findings cannot be extrapolated to individuals who are already diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease. “It is possible that different mechanisms exist to explain how gluten intake impacts those already diagnosed with IBD, and this topic warrants further study,” she said. Also, because the three cohort studies were observational, they are subject to bias. “While we tried to account for this in our analyses, residual bias may still exist.”
Dr. Lopes reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Walsh Lopes E et al. DDW 2020, abstract 847.
FROM DDW 2020