Women's Health

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Agile Therapeutics’ levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol transdermal system (Twirla) for contraception in women whose body mass index is less than 30 kg/m² and for whom a combined hormonal contraceptive is appropriate.

Applied weekly to the abdomen, buttock, or upper torso (excluding the breasts), Twirla delivers a 30-mcg daily dose of ethinyl estradiol and 120-mcg daily dose of levonorgestrel.

“Twirla is an important addition to available hormonal contraceptive methods, allowing prescribers to now offer appropriate U.S. women a weekly transdermal option that delivers estrogen levels in line with labeled doses of many commonly prescribed oral contraceptives, David Portman, MD, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Columbus, Ohio, and a primary investigator of the SECURE trial, said in a news release issued by the company.

Twirla was evaluated in “a diverse population providing important data to prescribers and to women seeking contraception. It is vital to expand the full range of contraceptive methods and inform the choices that fit an individual’s family planning needs and lifestyle,” Dr. Portman added.

As part of approval, the FDA will require Agile Therapeutics to conduct a long-term, prospective, observational postmarketing study to assess risks for venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboembolism in new users of Twirla, compared with new users of other combined hormonal contraceptives.

Twirla is contraindicated in women at high risk for arterial or venous thrombotic disease, including women with a BMI equal to or greater than 30 kg/m²; women who have headaches with focal neurologic symptoms or migraine with aura; and women older than 35 years who have any migraine headache.

Twirla also should be avoided in women who have liver tumors, acute viral hepatitis, decompensated cirrhosis, liver disease, or undiagnosed abnormal uterine bleeding. It also should be avoided during pregnancy; in women who currently have or who have history of breast cancer or other estrogen- or progestin-sensitive cancer; in women who are hypersensitivity to any components of Twirla; and in women who use hepatitis C drug combinations containing ombitasvir/paraparesis/ritonavir, with or without dasabuvir.

Because cigarette smoking increases the risk for serious cardiovascular events from combined hormonal contraceptive use, Twirla also is contraindicated in women older than 35 who smoke.

Twirla will contain a boxed warning that will include these risks about cigarette smoking and the serious cardiovascular events, and it will stipulate that Twirla is contraindicated in women with a BMI greater than 30 kg/m².

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Agile Therapeutics’ levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol transdermal system (Twirla) for contraception in women whose body mass index is less than 30 kg/m² and for whom a combined hormonal contraceptive is appropriate.

Applied weekly to the abdomen, buttock, or upper torso (excluding the breasts), Twirla delivers a 30-mcg daily dose of ethinyl estradiol and 120-mcg daily dose of levonorgestrel.

“Twirla is an important addition to available hormonal contraceptive methods, allowing prescribers to now offer appropriate U.S. women a weekly transdermal option that delivers estrogen levels in line with labeled doses of many commonly prescribed oral contraceptives, David Portman, MD, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Columbus, Ohio, and a primary investigator of the SECURE trial, said in a news release issued by the company.

Twirla was evaluated in “a diverse population providing important data to prescribers and to women seeking contraception. It is vital to expand the full range of contraceptive methods and inform the choices that fit an individual’s family planning needs and lifestyle,” Dr. Portman added.

As part of approval, the FDA will require Agile Therapeutics to conduct a long-term, prospective, observational postmarketing study to assess risks for venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboembolism in new users of Twirla, compared with new users of other combined hormonal contraceptives.

Twirla is contraindicated in women at high risk for arterial or venous thrombotic disease, including women with a BMI equal to or greater than 30 kg/m²; women who have headaches with focal neurologic symptoms or migraine with aura; and women older than 35 years who have any migraine headache.

Twirla also should be avoided in women who have liver tumors, acute viral hepatitis, decompensated cirrhosis, liver disease, or undiagnosed abnormal uterine bleeding. It also should be avoided during pregnancy; in women who currently have or who have history of breast cancer or other estrogen- or progestin-sensitive cancer; in women who are hypersensitivity to any components of Twirla; and in women who use hepatitis C drug combinations containing ombitasvir/paraparesis/ritonavir, with or without dasabuvir.

Because cigarette smoking increases the risk for serious cardiovascular events from combined hormonal contraceptive use, Twirla also is contraindicated in women older than 35 who smoke.

Twirla will contain a boxed warning that will include these risks about cigarette smoking and the serious cardiovascular events, and it will stipulate that Twirla is contraindicated in women with a BMI greater than 30 kg/m².

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Agile Therapeutics’ levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol transdermal system (Twirla) for contraception in women whose body mass index is less than 30 kg/m² and for whom a combined hormonal contraceptive is appropriate.

Applied weekly to the abdomen, buttock, or upper torso (excluding the breasts), Twirla delivers a 30-mcg daily dose of ethinyl estradiol and 120-mcg daily dose of levonorgestrel.

“Twirla is an important addition to available hormonal contraceptive methods, allowing prescribers to now offer appropriate U.S. women a weekly transdermal option that delivers estrogen levels in line with labeled doses of many commonly prescribed oral contraceptives, David Portman, MD, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Columbus, Ohio, and a primary investigator of the SECURE trial, said in a news release issued by the company.

Twirla was evaluated in “a diverse population providing important data to prescribers and to women seeking contraception. It is vital to expand the full range of contraceptive methods and inform the choices that fit an individual’s family planning needs and lifestyle,” Dr. Portman added.

As part of approval, the FDA will require Agile Therapeutics to conduct a long-term, prospective, observational postmarketing study to assess risks for venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboembolism in new users of Twirla, compared with new users of other combined hormonal contraceptives.

Twirla is contraindicated in women at high risk for arterial or venous thrombotic disease, including women with a BMI equal to or greater than 30 kg/m²; women who have headaches with focal neurologic symptoms or migraine with aura; and women older than 35 years who have any migraine headache.

Twirla also should be avoided in women who have liver tumors, acute viral hepatitis, decompensated cirrhosis, liver disease, or undiagnosed abnormal uterine bleeding. It also should be avoided during pregnancy; in women who currently have or who have history of breast cancer or other estrogen- or progestin-sensitive cancer; in women who are hypersensitivity to any components of Twirla; and in women who use hepatitis C drug combinations containing ombitasvir/paraparesis/ritonavir, with or without dasabuvir.

Because cigarette smoking increases the risk for serious cardiovascular events from combined hormonal contraceptive use, Twirla also is contraindicated in women older than 35 who smoke.

Twirla will contain a boxed warning that will include these risks about cigarette smoking and the serious cardiovascular events, and it will stipulate that Twirla is contraindicated in women with a BMI greater than 30 kg/m².

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among women with a history of gestational diabetes, a longer period of breastfeeding was associated with a lower probability of going on to develop type 2 diabetes, as well as a more favorable glucose metabolic biomarker profile. Women who breastfed for 2 years or longer had a 27% lower risk than that of those who did not breastfeed at all, even after adjustment for age, ethnicity, family history of diabetes, parity, age at first birth, smoking, diet quality, physical activity, and prepregnancy body mass index, according to findings published in Diabetes Care.

It remains to be seen if the association is causal, and if so, what mechanisms might connect breastfeeding duration to risk for type 2 diabetes, wrote study leaders Sylvia Ley, PhD, of Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and Cuilin Zhang, MD, PhD, of the Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues.

“It’s really nice to see this consistency and the long-term association being borne out in a very large sample of women with gestational diabetes,” Erica P. Gunderson, PhD, said in an interview about the study. Dr. Gunderson has conducted similar studies of her own, including one published in 2018 that showed an independent association between lactation and reduced diabetes risk in women (JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:328-37). That analysis showed no sign that the presence of gestational diabetes affected the reduction of diabetes risk associated with lactation.

Dr. Gunderson noted that pregnancy is a hyperlipidemic state, with triglyceride levels sometimes doubling, likely in response to the need to support the placenta and the growing fetus. Lactation may help restore lipid levels to the prepregnancy state by redirecting lipids to breast milk. She and others are working to produce more direct evidence of metabolic changes in the postpartum period associated with lactation. “That’s where we don’t have much mechanistic evidence right now,” said Dr. Gunderson, a senior research scientist and epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.

Gestational diabetes occurs in an estimated 5%-9% of pregnancies in the United States, and women who experience this complication are at greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the future. Findings from other studies have shown that longer lactation periods are associated with lowered risk of future type 2 disease (JAMA. 2005;294:2601-10).

In the latest study, the researchers included 4,372 women with a history of gestational diabetes, identified through the Nurses’ Health Study II. Participants were excluded if they had a history of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or multiple-birth pregnancy before the pregnancy during which they were diagnosed with gestational diabetes. In all, 873 women developed type 2 diabetes over 87,411 person-years of follow-up. The median age at gestational diabetes diagnosis was 31.8 years, and 49.8 years for diagnoses of type 2 diabetes.

After adjustment, the researchers found a steadying decline of risk for type 2 diabetes with increasing length of lactation: for up to 6 months of lactation, the hazard ratio was 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.34); for 6-12 months, the HR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71-1.15); 12-24 months, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.67-1.06); more than 24 months, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.57-0.93; P for trend = .004). Age, parity, primipara, prepregnancy body mass index, and age had no statistically significant effect modification on the association.

At a follow-up blood collection taken at median age of 58.2 years and 26.3 years after the gestational-diabetes index pregnancy, the researchers found associations between longer breastfeeding (greater than 24 months vs. 0 months) and lower hemoglobin A_1c percentage (5.58 vs. 5.68; P for trend = .04), lower insulin levels (53.1 vs. 64.7 pmol/L; P for trend = .02), and lower C-peptide levels (3.42 vs. 3.88 ng/mL; P for trend = .02).

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ley was supported by a National Institute of General Medical Sciences grant from the NIH. None of the study authors reported any conflicts of interest, and neither did Dr. Gunderson.

SOURCE: Ley S et al. Diabetes Care. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.2337/dc19-2237.

Among women with a history of gestational diabetes, a longer period of breastfeeding was associated with a lower probability of going on to develop type 2 diabetes, as well as a more favorable glucose metabolic biomarker profile. Women who breastfed for 2 years or longer had a 27% lower risk than that of those who did not breastfeed at all, even after adjustment for age, ethnicity, family history of diabetes, parity, age at first birth, smoking, diet quality, physical activity, and prepregnancy body mass index, according to findings published in Diabetes Care.

It remains to be seen if the association is causal, and if so, what mechanisms might connect breastfeeding duration to risk for type 2 diabetes, wrote study leaders Sylvia Ley, PhD, of Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and Cuilin Zhang, MD, PhD, of the Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues.

“It’s really nice to see this consistency and the long-term association being borne out in a very large sample of women with gestational diabetes,” Erica P. Gunderson, PhD, said in an interview about the study. Dr. Gunderson has conducted similar studies of her own, including one published in 2018 that showed an independent association between lactation and reduced diabetes risk in women (JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:328-37). That analysis showed no sign that the presence of gestational diabetes affected the reduction of diabetes risk associated with lactation.

Dr. Gunderson noted that pregnancy is a hyperlipidemic state, with triglyceride levels sometimes doubling, likely in response to the need to support the placenta and the growing fetus. Lactation may help restore lipid levels to the prepregnancy state by redirecting lipids to breast milk. She and others are working to produce more direct evidence of metabolic changes in the postpartum period associated with lactation. “That’s where we don’t have much mechanistic evidence right now,” said Dr. Gunderson, a senior research scientist and epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.

Gestational diabetes occurs in an estimated 5%-9% of pregnancies in the United States, and women who experience this complication are at greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the future. Findings from other studies have shown that longer lactation periods are associated with lowered risk of future type 2 disease (JAMA. 2005;294:2601-10).

In the latest study, the researchers included 4,372 women with a history of gestational diabetes, identified through the Nurses’ Health Study II. Participants were excluded if they had a history of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or multiple-birth pregnancy before the pregnancy during which they were diagnosed with gestational diabetes. In all, 873 women developed type 2 diabetes over 87,411 person-years of follow-up. The median age at gestational diabetes diagnosis was 31.8 years, and 49.8 years for diagnoses of type 2 diabetes.

After adjustment, the researchers found a steadying decline of risk for type 2 diabetes with increasing length of lactation: for up to 6 months of lactation, the hazard ratio was 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.34); for 6-12 months, the HR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71-1.15); 12-24 months, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.67-1.06); more than 24 months, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.57-0.93; P for trend = .004). Age, parity, primipara, prepregnancy body mass index, and age had no statistically significant effect modification on the association.

At a follow-up blood collection taken at median age of 58.2 years and 26.3 years after the gestational-diabetes index pregnancy, the researchers found associations between longer breastfeeding (greater than 24 months vs. 0 months) and lower hemoglobin A_1c percentage (5.58 vs. 5.68; P for trend = .04), lower insulin levels (53.1 vs. 64.7 pmol/L; P for trend = .02), and lower C-peptide levels (3.42 vs. 3.88 ng/mL; P for trend = .02).

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ley was supported by a National Institute of General Medical Sciences grant from the NIH. None of the study authors reported any conflicts of interest, and neither did Dr. Gunderson.

SOURCE: Ley S et al. Diabetes Care. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.2337/dc19-2237.

Among women with a history of gestational diabetes, a longer period of breastfeeding was associated with a lower probability of going on to develop type 2 diabetes, as well as a more favorable glucose metabolic biomarker profile. Women who breastfed for 2 years or longer had a 27% lower risk than that of those who did not breastfeed at all, even after adjustment for age, ethnicity, family history of diabetes, parity, age at first birth, smoking, diet quality, physical activity, and prepregnancy body mass index, according to findings published in Diabetes Care.

It remains to be seen if the association is causal, and if so, what mechanisms might connect breastfeeding duration to risk for type 2 diabetes, wrote study leaders Sylvia Ley, PhD, of Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and Cuilin Zhang, MD, PhD, of the Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues.

“It’s really nice to see this consistency and the long-term association being borne out in a very large sample of women with gestational diabetes,” Erica P. Gunderson, PhD, said in an interview about the study. Dr. Gunderson has conducted similar studies of her own, including one published in 2018 that showed an independent association between lactation and reduced diabetes risk in women (JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:328-37). That analysis showed no sign that the presence of gestational diabetes affected the reduction of diabetes risk associated with lactation.

Dr. Gunderson noted that pregnancy is a hyperlipidemic state, with triglyceride levels sometimes doubling, likely in response to the need to support the placenta and the growing fetus. Lactation may help restore lipid levels to the prepregnancy state by redirecting lipids to breast milk. She and others are working to produce more direct evidence of metabolic changes in the postpartum period associated with lactation. “That’s where we don’t have much mechanistic evidence right now,” said Dr. Gunderson, a senior research scientist and epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.

Gestational diabetes occurs in an estimated 5%-9% of pregnancies in the United States, and women who experience this complication are at greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the future. Findings from other studies have shown that longer lactation periods are associated with lowered risk of future type 2 disease (JAMA. 2005;294:2601-10).

In the latest study, the researchers included 4,372 women with a history of gestational diabetes, identified through the Nurses’ Health Study II. Participants were excluded if they had a history of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or multiple-birth pregnancy before the pregnancy during which they were diagnosed with gestational diabetes. In all, 873 women developed type 2 diabetes over 87,411 person-years of follow-up. The median age at gestational diabetes diagnosis was 31.8 years, and 49.8 years for diagnoses of type 2 diabetes.

After adjustment, the researchers found a steadying decline of risk for type 2 diabetes with increasing length of lactation: for up to 6 months of lactation, the hazard ratio was 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.34); for 6-12 months, the HR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71-1.15); 12-24 months, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.67-1.06); more than 24 months, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.57-0.93; P for trend = .004). Age, parity, primipara, prepregnancy body mass index, and age had no statistically significant effect modification on the association.

At a follow-up blood collection taken at median age of 58.2 years and 26.3 years after the gestational-diabetes index pregnancy, the researchers found associations between longer breastfeeding (greater than 24 months vs. 0 months) and lower hemoglobin A_1c percentage (5.58 vs. 5.68; P for trend = .04), lower insulin levels (53.1 vs. 64.7 pmol/L; P for trend = .02), and lower C-peptide levels (3.42 vs. 3.88 ng/mL; P for trend = .02).

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ley was supported by a National Institute of General Medical Sciences grant from the NIH. None of the study authors reported any conflicts of interest, and neither did Dr. Gunderson.

SOURCE: Ley S et al. Diabetes Care. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.2337/dc19-2237.

LAS VEGAS – While it’s fading in popularity, ovary removal in hysterectomy is still far from uncommon. A gynecologic surgeon urged colleagues to give deeper consideration to whether the ovaries can stay in place.

“Gynecologists should truly familiarize themselves with the data on cardiovascular, endocrine, bone, and sexual health implications of removing the ovaries when there isn’t a medical indication to do so,” Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, director of the Kelly gynecologic oncology service and the director of the center for rare gynecologic cancers at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said in an interview following her presentation at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

“Until I started giving this talk, I thought I knew this data. However, once I took a deeper dive into the studies of how hormonally active the postmenopausal ovaries are, as well as the population-based studies demonstrating worse all-cause mortality outcomes in low-risk women who have their ovaries surgically removed prior to their 60s, I was stunned at how compelling this data is,” she said.

The conventional wisdom about ovary removal in hysterectomy has changed dramatically over the decades. As Dr. Nickles Fader explained in the interview, “in the ’80s and early ’90s, the mantra was ‘just take everything out’ at hysterectomy surgery – tubes and ovaries should be removed – without understanding the implications. Then in the late ’90s and early 2000s, it was a more selective strategy of ‘wait until menopause to remove the ovaries.’ ”

Now, “more contemporary data suggests that the ovaries appear to be hormonally active to some degree well into the seventh decade of life, and even women in their early 60s who have their ovaries removed without a medical indication may be harmed.”

Still, ovary removal occurs in about 50%-60% of the 450,000-500,000 hysterectomies performed each year in the United States, Dr. Nickles Fader said at the meeting, which was jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

These findings seem to suggest that messages about the potential benefits of ovary preservation are not getting through to surgeons and patients.

Indeed, a 2017 study of 57,776 benign premenopausal hysterectomies with ovary removal in California from 2005 to 2011 found that 38% had no documented sign of an appropriate diagnosis signaling a need for oophorectomy. These included “ovarian cyst, breast cancer susceptibility gene carrier status, and other diagnoses,” the study authors wrote (Menopause. 2017 Aug;24[8]:947-53).

Dr. Nickles Fader emphasized that ovary removal is appropriate in cases of gynecologic malignancy, while patients at high genetic risk of ovarian cancer may consider salpingo-oophorectomy or salpingectomy.

What about other situations? She offered these pearls in the presentation:

• Don’t remove ovaries before age 60 “without a good reason” because the procedure may lower lifespan and increase cardiovascular risk.
• Ovary removal is linked to cognitive decline, Parkinson’s disease, depression and anxiety, glaucoma, sexual dysfunction, and bone fractures.
• Ovary preservation, in contrast, is linked to improvement of menopausal symptoms, sleep quality, urogenital atrophy, skin conditions, and metabolism.
• Fallopian tubes may be the true trouble area. “The prevailing theory amongst scientists and clinicians is that ‘ovarian cancer’ is in most cases a misnomer, and most of these malignancies start in the fallopian tube,” Dr. Nickles Fader said in the interview.

“It’s a better time than ever to be thoughtful about removing a woman’s ovaries in someone who is at low risk for ovarian cancer. The new, universal guideline is that instead of removing ovaries in most women undergoing hysterectomy, it’s quite important to consider removing just the fallopian tubes to best optimize cancer risk reduction and general health outcomes.”

Dr. Nickles Fader disclosed consulting work for Ethicon and Merck.

LAS VEGAS – While it’s fading in popularity, ovary removal in hysterectomy is still far from uncommon. A gynecologic surgeon urged colleagues to give deeper consideration to whether the ovaries can stay in place.

“Gynecologists should truly familiarize themselves with the data on cardiovascular, endocrine, bone, and sexual health implications of removing the ovaries when there isn’t a medical indication to do so,” Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, director of the Kelly gynecologic oncology service and the director of the center for rare gynecologic cancers at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said in an interview following her presentation at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

“Until I started giving this talk, I thought I knew this data. However, once I took a deeper dive into the studies of how hormonally active the postmenopausal ovaries are, as well as the population-based studies demonstrating worse all-cause mortality outcomes in low-risk women who have their ovaries surgically removed prior to their 60s, I was stunned at how compelling this data is,” she said.

The conventional wisdom about ovary removal in hysterectomy has changed dramatically over the decades. As Dr. Nickles Fader explained in the interview, “in the ’80s and early ’90s, the mantra was ‘just take everything out’ at hysterectomy surgery – tubes and ovaries should be removed – without understanding the implications. Then in the late ’90s and early 2000s, it was a more selective strategy of ‘wait until menopause to remove the ovaries.’ ”

Now, “more contemporary data suggests that the ovaries appear to be hormonally active to some degree well into the seventh decade of life, and even women in their early 60s who have their ovaries removed without a medical indication may be harmed.”

Still, ovary removal occurs in about 50%-60% of the 450,000-500,000 hysterectomies performed each year in the United States, Dr. Nickles Fader said at the meeting, which was jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

These findings seem to suggest that messages about the potential benefits of ovary preservation are not getting through to surgeons and patients.

Indeed, a 2017 study of 57,776 benign premenopausal hysterectomies with ovary removal in California from 2005 to 2011 found that 38% had no documented sign of an appropriate diagnosis signaling a need for oophorectomy. These included “ovarian cyst, breast cancer susceptibility gene carrier status, and other diagnoses,” the study authors wrote (Menopause. 2017 Aug;24[8]:947-53).

Dr. Nickles Fader emphasized that ovary removal is appropriate in cases of gynecologic malignancy, while patients at high genetic risk of ovarian cancer may consider salpingo-oophorectomy or salpingectomy.

What about other situations? She offered these pearls in the presentation:

• Don’t remove ovaries before age 60 “without a good reason” because the procedure may lower lifespan and increase cardiovascular risk.
• Ovary removal is linked to cognitive decline, Parkinson’s disease, depression and anxiety, glaucoma, sexual dysfunction, and bone fractures.
• Ovary preservation, in contrast, is linked to improvement of menopausal symptoms, sleep quality, urogenital atrophy, skin conditions, and metabolism.
• Fallopian tubes may be the true trouble area. “The prevailing theory amongst scientists and clinicians is that ‘ovarian cancer’ is in most cases a misnomer, and most of these malignancies start in the fallopian tube,” Dr. Nickles Fader said in the interview.

“It’s a better time than ever to be thoughtful about removing a woman’s ovaries in someone who is at low risk for ovarian cancer. The new, universal guideline is that instead of removing ovaries in most women undergoing hysterectomy, it’s quite important to consider removing just the fallopian tubes to best optimize cancer risk reduction and general health outcomes.”

Dr. Nickles Fader disclosed consulting work for Ethicon and Merck.

LAS VEGAS – While it’s fading in popularity, ovary removal in hysterectomy is still far from uncommon. A gynecologic surgeon urged colleagues to give deeper consideration to whether the ovaries can stay in place.

“Gynecologists should truly familiarize themselves with the data on cardiovascular, endocrine, bone, and sexual health implications of removing the ovaries when there isn’t a medical indication to do so,” Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, director of the Kelly gynecologic oncology service and the director of the center for rare gynecologic cancers at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said in an interview following her presentation at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

“Until I started giving this talk, I thought I knew this data. However, once I took a deeper dive into the studies of how hormonally active the postmenopausal ovaries are, as well as the population-based studies demonstrating worse all-cause mortality outcomes in low-risk women who have their ovaries surgically removed prior to their 60s, I was stunned at how compelling this data is,” she said.

The conventional wisdom about ovary removal in hysterectomy has changed dramatically over the decades. As Dr. Nickles Fader explained in the interview, “in the ’80s and early ’90s, the mantra was ‘just take everything out’ at hysterectomy surgery – tubes and ovaries should be removed – without understanding the implications. Then in the late ’90s and early 2000s, it was a more selective strategy of ‘wait until menopause to remove the ovaries.’ ”

Now, “more contemporary data suggests that the ovaries appear to be hormonally active to some degree well into the seventh decade of life, and even women in their early 60s who have their ovaries removed without a medical indication may be harmed.”

Still, ovary removal occurs in about 50%-60% of the 450,000-500,000 hysterectomies performed each year in the United States, Dr. Nickles Fader said at the meeting, which was jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

These findings seem to suggest that messages about the potential benefits of ovary preservation are not getting through to surgeons and patients.

Indeed, a 2017 study of 57,776 benign premenopausal hysterectomies with ovary removal in California from 2005 to 2011 found that 38% had no documented sign of an appropriate diagnosis signaling a need for oophorectomy. These included “ovarian cyst, breast cancer susceptibility gene carrier status, and other diagnoses,” the study authors wrote (Menopause. 2017 Aug;24[8]:947-53).

Dr. Nickles Fader emphasized that ovary removal is appropriate in cases of gynecologic malignancy, while patients at high genetic risk of ovarian cancer may consider salpingo-oophorectomy or salpingectomy.

What about other situations? She offered these pearls in the presentation:

• Don’t remove ovaries before age 60 “without a good reason” because the procedure may lower lifespan and increase cardiovascular risk.
• Ovary removal is linked to cognitive decline, Parkinson’s disease, depression and anxiety, glaucoma, sexual dysfunction, and bone fractures.
• Ovary preservation, in contrast, is linked to improvement of menopausal symptoms, sleep quality, urogenital atrophy, skin conditions, and metabolism.
• Fallopian tubes may be the true trouble area. “The prevailing theory amongst scientists and clinicians is that ‘ovarian cancer’ is in most cases a misnomer, and most of these malignancies start in the fallopian tube,” Dr. Nickles Fader said in the interview.

“It’s a better time than ever to be thoughtful about removing a woman’s ovaries in someone who is at low risk for ovarian cancer. The new, universal guideline is that instead of removing ovaries in most women undergoing hysterectomy, it’s quite important to consider removing just the fallopian tubes to best optimize cancer risk reduction and general health outcomes.”

Dr. Nickles Fader disclosed consulting work for Ethicon and Merck.

Women with breast cancer may be receiving treatments that are discordant with guideline recommendations for genetic subtypes of disease, based on a retrospective analysis of more than 20,000 patients.

Radiotherapy and chemotherapy practices were particularly out of alignment with guidelines, reported lead author Allison W. Kurian, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

“Integrating genetic testing into breast cancer care has been complex and challenging,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “There is wide variability in which clinicians order testing and disclose results, in the clinical significance of results, and in how clinicians interpret results to patients.”

According to the investigators, while germline testing is on the rise, little is known about how these test results are translating to clinical care.

To learn more, the investigators evaluated data from 20,568 women with stage 0-III breast cancer who entered the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and California between 2014 and 2016.

Three treatment types were evaluated: surgery (bilateral vs. unilateral mastectomy), radiotherapy after lumpectomy, and chemotherapy. Treatment selection was compared with test results for breast cancer–associated genes, such as BRCA1/2, TP53, PTEN, and others. Associations were then compared with guideline recommendations.

Data analysis suggested that many clinicians were correctly using genetic test results to guide surgical decisions. For example, almost two-thirds (61.7%) of women with a BRCA mutation underwent bilateral mastectomy, compared with one-quarter (24.3%) who were BRCA negative (odds ratio, 5.52). For other pathogenic variants, the rate of bilateral mastectomy was still elevated, albeit to a lesser degree (OR, 2.41).

Generally, these practices align with recommendations, the investigators wrote, noting that research supports bilateral mastectomy with BRCA1/2, TP53, and PTEN variants, while data are lacking for other genetic subtypes.

Radiotherapy and chemotherapy practices were more discordant with guidelines. For example, women with a BRCA mutation were 78% less likely to receive radiotherapy after lumpectomy (OR, 0.22) and 76% more likely to receive chemotherapy for early-stage, hormone-positive disease (OR, 1.76). According to investigators, these findings suggest possible trends in undertreatment and overtreatment, respectively.

“We believe more research is needed to confirm our results and to evaluate long-term outcomes of pathogenic variant carriers to understand treatment decision making and consequences,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the California Department of Public Health. The investigators reported relationships with Myriad Genetics, Genomic Health, Roche, and other companies.

SOURCE: Kurian AW et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.6400.

Women with breast cancer may be receiving treatments that are discordant with guideline recommendations for genetic subtypes of disease, based on a retrospective analysis of more than 20,000 patients.

Radiotherapy and chemotherapy practices were particularly out of alignment with guidelines, reported lead author Allison W. Kurian, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

“Integrating genetic testing into breast cancer care has been complex and challenging,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “There is wide variability in which clinicians order testing and disclose results, in the clinical significance of results, and in how clinicians interpret results to patients.”

According to the investigators, while germline testing is on the rise, little is known about how these test results are translating to clinical care.

To learn more, the investigators evaluated data from 20,568 women with stage 0-III breast cancer who entered the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and California between 2014 and 2016.

Three treatment types were evaluated: surgery (bilateral vs. unilateral mastectomy), radiotherapy after lumpectomy, and chemotherapy. Treatment selection was compared with test results for breast cancer–associated genes, such as BRCA1/2, TP53, PTEN, and others. Associations were then compared with guideline recommendations.

Data analysis suggested that many clinicians were correctly using genetic test results to guide surgical decisions. For example, almost two-thirds (61.7%) of women with a BRCA mutation underwent bilateral mastectomy, compared with one-quarter (24.3%) who were BRCA negative (odds ratio, 5.52). For other pathogenic variants, the rate of bilateral mastectomy was still elevated, albeit to a lesser degree (OR, 2.41).

Generally, these practices align with recommendations, the investigators wrote, noting that research supports bilateral mastectomy with BRCA1/2, TP53, and PTEN variants, while data are lacking for other genetic subtypes.

Radiotherapy and chemotherapy practices were more discordant with guidelines. For example, women with a BRCA mutation were 78% less likely to receive radiotherapy after lumpectomy (OR, 0.22) and 76% more likely to receive chemotherapy for early-stage, hormone-positive disease (OR, 1.76). According to investigators, these findings suggest possible trends in undertreatment and overtreatment, respectively.

“We believe more research is needed to confirm our results and to evaluate long-term outcomes of pathogenic variant carriers to understand treatment decision making and consequences,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the California Department of Public Health. The investigators reported relationships with Myriad Genetics, Genomic Health, Roche, and other companies.

SOURCE: Kurian AW et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.6400.

Women with breast cancer may be receiving treatments that are discordant with guideline recommendations for genetic subtypes of disease, based on a retrospective analysis of more than 20,000 patients.

Radiotherapy and chemotherapy practices were particularly out of alignment with guidelines, reported lead author Allison W. Kurian, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

“Integrating genetic testing into breast cancer care has been complex and challenging,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “There is wide variability in which clinicians order testing and disclose results, in the clinical significance of results, and in how clinicians interpret results to patients.”

According to the investigators, while germline testing is on the rise, little is known about how these test results are translating to clinical care.

To learn more, the investigators evaluated data from 20,568 women with stage 0-III breast cancer who entered the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and California between 2014 and 2016.

Three treatment types were evaluated: surgery (bilateral vs. unilateral mastectomy), radiotherapy after lumpectomy, and chemotherapy. Treatment selection was compared with test results for breast cancer–associated genes, such as BRCA1/2, TP53, PTEN, and others. Associations were then compared with guideline recommendations.

Data analysis suggested that many clinicians were correctly using genetic test results to guide surgical decisions. For example, almost two-thirds (61.7%) of women with a BRCA mutation underwent bilateral mastectomy, compared with one-quarter (24.3%) who were BRCA negative (odds ratio, 5.52). For other pathogenic variants, the rate of bilateral mastectomy was still elevated, albeit to a lesser degree (OR, 2.41).

Generally, these practices align with recommendations, the investigators wrote, noting that research supports bilateral mastectomy with BRCA1/2, TP53, and PTEN variants, while data are lacking for other genetic subtypes.

Radiotherapy and chemotherapy practices were more discordant with guidelines. For example, women with a BRCA mutation were 78% less likely to receive radiotherapy after lumpectomy (OR, 0.22) and 76% more likely to receive chemotherapy for early-stage, hormone-positive disease (OR, 1.76). According to investigators, these findings suggest possible trends in undertreatment and overtreatment, respectively.

“We believe more research is needed to confirm our results and to evaluate long-term outcomes of pathogenic variant carriers to understand treatment decision making and consequences,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the California Department of Public Health. The investigators reported relationships with Myriad Genetics, Genomic Health, Roche, and other companies.

SOURCE: Kurian AW et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Feb 6. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.6400.

A single dose of the human papillomavirus vaccine is as effective as two or three doses for preventing cervical cancer in girls and women vaccinated at 15-19 years of age, based on data from a retrospective study of more than 100,000 girls and women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s current recommendations include a two-dose vaccine schedule for the HPV vaccine for girls and boys younger than 15 years, and a three-dose schedule for girls and young women aged 16-26 years who had their first dose before turning 15.

However, rates of HPV vaccination in the United States fall short of those in other developed nations, and evidence supporting the protective value of a specific number of vaccine doses are mixed, wrote Ana M. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, and colleagues. Fewer than three doses could have benefits, including easier logistics, lower costs, higher acceptance rates, and fewer side effects, they said. The study was published in Cancer.

The researchers reviewed data from 66,541 girls and women aged 9-26 years who had received at least one dose of HPV vaccine (4vHPV) between Jan. 1, 2006, and June 30, 2015, and 66,541 matched unvaccinated controls. The primary outcomes were histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease and high-grade cytology.

Overall, the adjusted hazard ratios for histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease among patients vaccinated at the ages of 15-19 years with one, two, and three doses were similar, at 0.64, 0.72, and 0.66, respectively, compared with unvaccinated individuals.

The risk of high-grade cytology was significantly lower for girls and women who received three doses at age 15-19 years, compared with unvaccinated individuals, but no difference was seen in high-grade cytology between unvaccinated individuals and those who received one or two doses. In addition, the unadjusted rate of preinvasive cervical disease at 5 years was 2.65% for unvaccinated teens aged 15-19 years, compared with 1.62%, 1.99%, and 1.86% in the one-, two- and three-dose groups, respectively.The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of billing codes to determine outcomes and the inability to determine potential vaccination through multiple insurance carriers, and the inclusion only of privately insured patients from the claims database, the researchers noted.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and show a similar level of association between varying vaccine doses and preinvasive cervical lesions in the 15- to 19-year-old population, they said.

“Efforts should focus on not only the need to initiate the HPV vaccine but also the need for beginning and continuing cervical cancer screening among young women who are vaccinated at older ages (18 years and older),” they said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Julia M.L. Brotherton, PhD, MPH, and Karin Sundström, MD, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, Australia, and the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, respectively, wrote that the study’s strengths included the large numbers of girls and women who received a single dose of the HPV vaccine, compared with previous studies, as well as the adjustments for histories of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy (Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32696). “Initial observational data from vaccination programs did not support equivalent one-dose protection against genital warts or cervical disease, but such data may have been confounded by potentially higher risk characteristics of women who only ever received one or two doses of an intended three-dose course i.e., women noncompliant with the vaccine program [amplified by the monitoring of outcomes among the initial catch-up populations of already infected women]) and by the inherent bias that prevalent infection/disease is more likely to become apparent coincidently with the earlier doses in a vaccine course,” they said. The study findings have implications for global goals to eliminate cervical cancer, the editorial authors noted.

“If one dose of an HPV vaccine were sufficient for effective protection, HPV vaccine implementation and scale-up would require less logistics (while being amenable to a periodic campaign approach), available doses could be extended further, and the overall cost would be lower,” they said.

The study was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, and by the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Brotherton disclosed serving as an investigator for Seqirus and Merck; Dr. Sundström disclosed research funding for her institution from Merck and MSD Sweden.

SOURCE: Rodriguez AM et al. Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32700.

A single dose of the human papillomavirus vaccine is as effective as two or three doses for preventing cervical cancer in girls and women vaccinated at 15-19 years of age, based on data from a retrospective study of more than 100,000 girls and women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s current recommendations include a two-dose vaccine schedule for the HPV vaccine for girls and boys younger than 15 years, and a three-dose schedule for girls and young women aged 16-26 years who had their first dose before turning 15.

However, rates of HPV vaccination in the United States fall short of those in other developed nations, and evidence supporting the protective value of a specific number of vaccine doses are mixed, wrote Ana M. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, and colleagues. Fewer than three doses could have benefits, including easier logistics, lower costs, higher acceptance rates, and fewer side effects, they said. The study was published in Cancer.

The researchers reviewed data from 66,541 girls and women aged 9-26 years who had received at least one dose of HPV vaccine (4vHPV) between Jan. 1, 2006, and June 30, 2015, and 66,541 matched unvaccinated controls. The primary outcomes were histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease and high-grade cytology.

Overall, the adjusted hazard ratios for histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease among patients vaccinated at the ages of 15-19 years with one, two, and three doses were similar, at 0.64, 0.72, and 0.66, respectively, compared with unvaccinated individuals.

The risk of high-grade cytology was significantly lower for girls and women who received three doses at age 15-19 years, compared with unvaccinated individuals, but no difference was seen in high-grade cytology between unvaccinated individuals and those who received one or two doses. In addition, the unadjusted rate of preinvasive cervical disease at 5 years was 2.65% for unvaccinated teens aged 15-19 years, compared with 1.62%, 1.99%, and 1.86% in the one-, two- and three-dose groups, respectively.The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of billing codes to determine outcomes and the inability to determine potential vaccination through multiple insurance carriers, and the inclusion only of privately insured patients from the claims database, the researchers noted.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and show a similar level of association between varying vaccine doses and preinvasive cervical lesions in the 15- to 19-year-old population, they said.

“Efforts should focus on not only the need to initiate the HPV vaccine but also the need for beginning and continuing cervical cancer screening among young women who are vaccinated at older ages (18 years and older),” they said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Julia M.L. Brotherton, PhD, MPH, and Karin Sundström, MD, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, Australia, and the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, respectively, wrote that the study’s strengths included the large numbers of girls and women who received a single dose of the HPV vaccine, compared with previous studies, as well as the adjustments for histories of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy (Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32696). “Initial observational data from vaccination programs did not support equivalent one-dose protection against genital warts or cervical disease, but such data may have been confounded by potentially higher risk characteristics of women who only ever received one or two doses of an intended three-dose course i.e., women noncompliant with the vaccine program [amplified by the monitoring of outcomes among the initial catch-up populations of already infected women]) and by the inherent bias that prevalent infection/disease is more likely to become apparent coincidently with the earlier doses in a vaccine course,” they said. The study findings have implications for global goals to eliminate cervical cancer, the editorial authors noted.

“If one dose of an HPV vaccine were sufficient for effective protection, HPV vaccine implementation and scale-up would require less logistics (while being amenable to a periodic campaign approach), available doses could be extended further, and the overall cost would be lower,” they said.

The study was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, and by the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Brotherton disclosed serving as an investigator for Seqirus and Merck; Dr. Sundström disclosed research funding for her institution from Merck and MSD Sweden.

SOURCE: Rodriguez AM et al. Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32700.

A single dose of the human papillomavirus vaccine is as effective as two or three doses for preventing cervical cancer in girls and women vaccinated at 15-19 years of age, based on data from a retrospective study of more than 100,000 girls and women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s current recommendations include a two-dose vaccine schedule for the HPV vaccine for girls and boys younger than 15 years, and a three-dose schedule for girls and young women aged 16-26 years who had their first dose before turning 15.

However, rates of HPV vaccination in the United States fall short of those in other developed nations, and evidence supporting the protective value of a specific number of vaccine doses are mixed, wrote Ana M. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, and colleagues. Fewer than three doses could have benefits, including easier logistics, lower costs, higher acceptance rates, and fewer side effects, they said. The study was published in Cancer.

The researchers reviewed data from 66,541 girls and women aged 9-26 years who had received at least one dose of HPV vaccine (4vHPV) between Jan. 1, 2006, and June 30, 2015, and 66,541 matched unvaccinated controls. The primary outcomes were histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease and high-grade cytology.

Overall, the adjusted hazard ratios for histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease among patients vaccinated at the ages of 15-19 years with one, two, and three doses were similar, at 0.64, 0.72, and 0.66, respectively, compared with unvaccinated individuals.

The risk of high-grade cytology was significantly lower for girls and women who received three doses at age 15-19 years, compared with unvaccinated individuals, but no difference was seen in high-grade cytology between unvaccinated individuals and those who received one or two doses. In addition, the unadjusted rate of preinvasive cervical disease at 5 years was 2.65% for unvaccinated teens aged 15-19 years, compared with 1.62%, 1.99%, and 1.86% in the one-, two- and three-dose groups, respectively.The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of billing codes to determine outcomes and the inability to determine potential vaccination through multiple insurance carriers, and the inclusion only of privately insured patients from the claims database, the researchers noted.

However, the results support findings from previous studies and show a similar level of association between varying vaccine doses and preinvasive cervical lesions in the 15- to 19-year-old population, they said.

“Efforts should focus on not only the need to initiate the HPV vaccine but also the need for beginning and continuing cervical cancer screening among young women who are vaccinated at older ages (18 years and older),” they said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Julia M.L. Brotherton, PhD, MPH, and Karin Sundström, MD, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, Australia, and the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, respectively, wrote that the study’s strengths included the large numbers of girls and women who received a single dose of the HPV vaccine, compared with previous studies, as well as the adjustments for histories of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy (Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32696). “Initial observational data from vaccination programs did not support equivalent one-dose protection against genital warts or cervical disease, but such data may have been confounded by potentially higher risk characteristics of women who only ever received one or two doses of an intended three-dose course i.e., women noncompliant with the vaccine program [amplified by the monitoring of outcomes among the initial catch-up populations of already infected women]) and by the inherent bias that prevalent infection/disease is more likely to become apparent coincidently with the earlier doses in a vaccine course,” they said. The study findings have implications for global goals to eliminate cervical cancer, the editorial authors noted.

“If one dose of an HPV vaccine were sufficient for effective protection, HPV vaccine implementation and scale-up would require less logistics (while being amenable to a periodic campaign approach), available doses could be extended further, and the overall cost would be lower,” they said.

The study was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, and by the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Brotherton disclosed serving as an investigator for Seqirus and Merck; Dr. Sundström disclosed research funding for her institution from Merck and MSD Sweden.

SOURCE: Rodriguez AM et al. Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32700.

CHICAGO – An abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol for screening individuals at high risk for breast cancer performed as well as a standard protocol, in about half the time and with greater patient satisfaction.

The abbreviated protocol also resulted in fewer false positive findings, with 5% fewer patients receiving biopsies for benign lesions than with a standard protocol (8.4% versus 13.7%, P less than .001).

Findings from the prospective 10-month trial conducted in the province of Ontario were presented by Jean Seely, MD, professor of radiology at the University of Ottawa, at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

“The abbreviated protocol was shown to be as effective as the standard protocol in high-risk screening breast MRI, supporting previous studies,” said Dr. Seely. The shorter protocol took 16.3 minutes on average, compared with 27 minutes for the standard MRI protocol. This difference resulted in a 50% increase in institutional capacity, or a jump from two to three patients screened per hour.

In the province of Ontario, said Dr. Seely, women assessed at being at a 25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer receive MRIs as part of the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP), which calculates risk by using the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study model.

For high-risk patients, the OBSP model provides annual mammography and an MRI for women between the ages of 30 and 60 years. Not only is the half-hour duration of the standard protocol resource-intensive, especially in regions with limited scanner availability, but patients may either be reluctant to undergo a half-hour scan, or not tolerate a lengthy scan very well.

Dr. Seely cited previous work (J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 1;32[22]:2304-10) showing that an abbreviated MRI protocol has similar accuracy as the full standard protocol. With the foundation of evidence from this study, Dr. Seely and her collaborators compared outcomes for high-risk patients who were screened with an abbreviated versus a standard protocol.

The abbreviated protocol, approved by the American College of Radiology, omits a final round of image acquisition sequences at the 9-minute mark after gadolinium administration, instead performing acquisition at 1, 2, 3, and 4 minutes after contrast delivery. Total time required for this protocol is just over 13 minutes, said Dr. Seely, and additional diagnostic MRIs were not required.

The trial was constructed so that the abbreviated protocol was used for the entire OBSP cohort for 10 months in 2018. Results were compared with those from the 12 previous months, when OBSP patients’ MRIs were performed using the standard protocol.

A total of 881 patients received standard-protocol MRIs; about three quarters (651) of those patients had previous MRI screening, while the remaining 230 patients had a baseline screen via the standard protocol.

Of the 658 patients in the abbreviated protocol group, 135, or about 20%, received the briefer scans as a baseline screen; the remast of the patients in this arm had received earlier MRI screening.

In addition to tracking scanning times, Dr. Seely and her collaborators also compared cancer detection rates, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment categories, positive predictive values, and the abnormal interpretation rate – that is, how many scans fell into BI-RADS categories 0, 4, and 5.

No significant difference was found between the rates of BI-RADs 0, 3, or 5 studies between the groups. Significantly fewer abbreviated scans fell into the BI-RADS 4 category, however (9.3% vs. 14.9%; P less than .001).

Similarly, the abnormal interpretation rate was 12.5% for the abbreviated protocol, compared with 17.5% for the standard protocol (P less than .007), with a correspondingly lower biopsy rate of 8.4% for the abbreviated protocol, compared with 13.7% for the standard protocol (P less than .001). The overall cancer detection rate did not differ between groups.

The net effect of the abbreviated protocol, said Dr. Seely, was an increase in positive predictive value without a drop in cancer detection rates. She and her colleagues will continue to track outcomes for those receiving abbreviated screening within the province of Ontario to track performance over time.

Dr. Seely reported that she had no relevant conflicts of interest. She reported no funding source beyond the province of Ontario.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Seely J et al. RSNA 2019, Session RC-215-04.

CHICAGO – An abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol for screening individuals at high risk for breast cancer performed as well as a standard protocol, in about half the time and with greater patient satisfaction.

The abbreviated protocol also resulted in fewer false positive findings, with 5% fewer patients receiving biopsies for benign lesions than with a standard protocol (8.4% versus 13.7%, P less than .001).

Findings from the prospective 10-month trial conducted in the province of Ontario were presented by Jean Seely, MD, professor of radiology at the University of Ottawa, at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

“The abbreviated protocol was shown to be as effective as the standard protocol in high-risk screening breast MRI, supporting previous studies,” said Dr. Seely. The shorter protocol took 16.3 minutes on average, compared with 27 minutes for the standard MRI protocol. This difference resulted in a 50% increase in institutional capacity, or a jump from two to three patients screened per hour.

In the province of Ontario, said Dr. Seely, women assessed at being at a 25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer receive MRIs as part of the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP), which calculates risk by using the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study model.

For high-risk patients, the OBSP model provides annual mammography and an MRI for women between the ages of 30 and 60 years. Not only is the half-hour duration of the standard protocol resource-intensive, especially in regions with limited scanner availability, but patients may either be reluctant to undergo a half-hour scan, or not tolerate a lengthy scan very well.

Dr. Seely cited previous work (J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 1;32[22]:2304-10) showing that an abbreviated MRI protocol has similar accuracy as the full standard protocol. With the foundation of evidence from this study, Dr. Seely and her collaborators compared outcomes for high-risk patients who were screened with an abbreviated versus a standard protocol.

The abbreviated protocol, approved by the American College of Radiology, omits a final round of image acquisition sequences at the 9-minute mark after gadolinium administration, instead performing acquisition at 1, 2, 3, and 4 minutes after contrast delivery. Total time required for this protocol is just over 13 minutes, said Dr. Seely, and additional diagnostic MRIs were not required.

The trial was constructed so that the abbreviated protocol was used for the entire OBSP cohort for 10 months in 2018. Results were compared with those from the 12 previous months, when OBSP patients’ MRIs were performed using the standard protocol.

A total of 881 patients received standard-protocol MRIs; about three quarters (651) of those patients had previous MRI screening, while the remaining 230 patients had a baseline screen via the standard protocol.

Of the 658 patients in the abbreviated protocol group, 135, or about 20%, received the briefer scans as a baseline screen; the remast of the patients in this arm had received earlier MRI screening.

In addition to tracking scanning times, Dr. Seely and her collaborators also compared cancer detection rates, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment categories, positive predictive values, and the abnormal interpretation rate – that is, how many scans fell into BI-RADS categories 0, 4, and 5.

No significant difference was found between the rates of BI-RADs 0, 3, or 5 studies between the groups. Significantly fewer abbreviated scans fell into the BI-RADS 4 category, however (9.3% vs. 14.9%; P less than .001).

Similarly, the abnormal interpretation rate was 12.5% for the abbreviated protocol, compared with 17.5% for the standard protocol (P less than .007), with a correspondingly lower biopsy rate of 8.4% for the abbreviated protocol, compared with 13.7% for the standard protocol (P less than .001). The overall cancer detection rate did not differ between groups.

The net effect of the abbreviated protocol, said Dr. Seely, was an increase in positive predictive value without a drop in cancer detection rates. She and her colleagues will continue to track outcomes for those receiving abbreviated screening within the province of Ontario to track performance over time.

Dr. Seely reported that she had no relevant conflicts of interest. She reported no funding source beyond the province of Ontario.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Seely J et al. RSNA 2019, Session RC-215-04.

CHICAGO – An abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol for screening individuals at high risk for breast cancer performed as well as a standard protocol, in about half the time and with greater patient satisfaction.

The abbreviated protocol also resulted in fewer false positive findings, with 5% fewer patients receiving biopsies for benign lesions than with a standard protocol (8.4% versus 13.7%, P less than .001).

Findings from the prospective 10-month trial conducted in the province of Ontario were presented by Jean Seely, MD, professor of radiology at the University of Ottawa, at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

“The abbreviated protocol was shown to be as effective as the standard protocol in high-risk screening breast MRI, supporting previous studies,” said Dr. Seely. The shorter protocol took 16.3 minutes on average, compared with 27 minutes for the standard MRI protocol. This difference resulted in a 50% increase in institutional capacity, or a jump from two to three patients screened per hour.

In the province of Ontario, said Dr. Seely, women assessed at being at a 25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer receive MRIs as part of the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP), which calculates risk by using the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study model.

For high-risk patients, the OBSP model provides annual mammography and an MRI for women between the ages of 30 and 60 years. Not only is the half-hour duration of the standard protocol resource-intensive, especially in regions with limited scanner availability, but patients may either be reluctant to undergo a half-hour scan, or not tolerate a lengthy scan very well.

Dr. Seely cited previous work (J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 1;32[22]:2304-10) showing that an abbreviated MRI protocol has similar accuracy as the full standard protocol. With the foundation of evidence from this study, Dr. Seely and her collaborators compared outcomes for high-risk patients who were screened with an abbreviated versus a standard protocol.

The abbreviated protocol, approved by the American College of Radiology, omits a final round of image acquisition sequences at the 9-minute mark after gadolinium administration, instead performing acquisition at 1, 2, 3, and 4 minutes after contrast delivery. Total time required for this protocol is just over 13 minutes, said Dr. Seely, and additional diagnostic MRIs were not required.

The trial was constructed so that the abbreviated protocol was used for the entire OBSP cohort for 10 months in 2018. Results were compared with those from the 12 previous months, when OBSP patients’ MRIs were performed using the standard protocol.

A total of 881 patients received standard-protocol MRIs; about three quarters (651) of those patients had previous MRI screening, while the remaining 230 patients had a baseline screen via the standard protocol.

Of the 658 patients in the abbreviated protocol group, 135, or about 20%, received the briefer scans as a baseline screen; the remast of the patients in this arm had received earlier MRI screening.

In addition to tracking scanning times, Dr. Seely and her collaborators also compared cancer detection rates, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment categories, positive predictive values, and the abnormal interpretation rate – that is, how many scans fell into BI-RADS categories 0, 4, and 5.

No significant difference was found between the rates of BI-RADs 0, 3, or 5 studies between the groups. Significantly fewer abbreviated scans fell into the BI-RADS 4 category, however (9.3% vs. 14.9%; P less than .001).

Similarly, the abnormal interpretation rate was 12.5% for the abbreviated protocol, compared with 17.5% for the standard protocol (P less than .007), with a correspondingly lower biopsy rate of 8.4% for the abbreviated protocol, compared with 13.7% for the standard protocol (P less than .001). The overall cancer detection rate did not differ between groups.

The net effect of the abbreviated protocol, said Dr. Seely, was an increase in positive predictive value without a drop in cancer detection rates. She and her colleagues will continue to track outcomes for those receiving abbreviated screening within the province of Ontario to track performance over time.

Dr. Seely reported that she had no relevant conflicts of interest. She reported no funding source beyond the province of Ontario.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Seely J et al. RSNA 2019, Session RC-215-04.

GRAPEVINE, TEX. – College education and high socioeconomic status do not erase U.S. racial disparities in birth outcomes, according to a new analysis of all U.S. live births from 2015-2017.

Very early preterm birth – birth before 28 weeks gestational age – was five times more likely to occur in non-Hispanic black women of high socioeconomic status as similarly situated white women, even after statistical adjustment for a host of potentially confounding factors.

Being of non-Hispanic black race was the single strongest predictor of preterm birth (PTB) at less than 28 weeks’ gestation. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 4.99 surpassed an interpregnancy interval under 1 year (aOR, 4.47), chronic hypertension (aOR, 2.84), and prior history of preterm birth (aOR, 2.81).

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Johnson J et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;222(1):S-37-8, Abstract 44.

GRAPEVINE, TEX. – College education and high socioeconomic status do not erase U.S. racial disparities in birth outcomes, according to a new analysis of all U.S. live births from 2015-2017.

Very early preterm birth – birth before 28 weeks gestational age – was five times more likely to occur in non-Hispanic black women of high socioeconomic status as similarly situated white women, even after statistical adjustment for a host of potentially confounding factors.

Being of non-Hispanic black race was the single strongest predictor of preterm birth (PTB) at less than 28 weeks’ gestation. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 4.99 surpassed an interpregnancy interval under 1 year (aOR, 4.47), chronic hypertension (aOR, 2.84), and prior history of preterm birth (aOR, 2.81).

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Johnson J et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;222(1):S-37-8, Abstract 44.

GRAPEVINE, TEX. – College education and high socioeconomic status do not erase U.S. racial disparities in birth outcomes, according to a new analysis of all U.S. live births from 2015-2017.

Very early preterm birth – birth before 28 weeks gestational age – was five times more likely to occur in non-Hispanic black women of high socioeconomic status as similarly situated white women, even after statistical adjustment for a host of potentially confounding factors.

Being of non-Hispanic black race was the single strongest predictor of preterm birth (PTB) at less than 28 weeks’ gestation. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 4.99 surpassed an interpregnancy interval under 1 year (aOR, 4.47), chronic hypertension (aOR, 2.84), and prior history of preterm birth (aOR, 2.81).

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Johnson J et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;222(1):S-37-8, Abstract 44.

The median highest pain score in a randomized trial of 38 women undergoing vulvar biopsies was 25.7 mm lower, on a 100 mm visual analogue scale, when they received 5% lidocaine-prilocaine cream instead of a 1% lidocaine injection, according to a report from Duke University, in Durham, N.C.

“In the current study, we found that application of lidocaine-prilocaine cream, alone, for a minimum of 10 minutes before vulvar biopsy on a non–hair-bearing surface results in a significantly lower maximum pain score and a significantly better patient rating of the biopsy experience,” said investigators led by Logan K. Williams, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Given the “clear advantage” of the cream, it “should be considered as an anesthetic method for vulvar biopsy in a non-hair-bearing area,” Dr. Williams and colleagues concluded (Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135{2]:311-8).

Studies have pitted the cream against the injection before, but they did not compare patients’ maximal pain scores. The team wanted to do that because “comparing the highest score allows us to consider the possibility that the pain of anesthesia application” – injection versus cream – “may be greater than the pain of any other portion of the biopsy procedure.”

They randomized 19 women to the cream, approximately 5 g at the site of biopsy at least 10 minutes beforehand, and 18 others to the injection, 2 mL using a 27-gauge needle, at least 1 minute prior.

The median highest pain score in the lidocaine-prilocaine group was 20 mm, but 56.5 mm in the injection group. Patients randomized to lidocaine-prilocaine also had a significantly better (P = 0.02) experience than those receiving injected lidocaine, also assessed by visual analog scale (VAS). The median baseline pain level was 0 mm.

Anxiety was assessed after patients knew whether they were going to get the cream or the injection, but before the biopsy. The median score in the cream group was of 19 mm on another VAS, compared with 31.5 mm.

The team had planned to enroll 106 women, but given the results on interim analysis, they stopped the trial early.

Participants were 60 years old on average, and almost all had prior vulvar biopsies. Two in the cream group and three in the injection group had punch biopsies; cervical biopsy forceps were used for the rest. More than half the women had benign findings, and most of the others had vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia, but there was one invasive cancer. At Duke, the cost of the injection was $0.99, compared with $7.36 for the cream.

Dr. Williams and colleagues cited a few limitations. One is that the patients and clinicians in the study were not blinded. Another is that most of the patients had undergone vulvar biopsy before, possibly predisposing them to bias.

“In the future, consideration could be taken to studying lidocaine-prilocaine cream applications to hair-bearing surfaces, which were excluded in this study.” Also, “there is a question of the histologic effect of lidocaine-prilocaine on tissues and whether this could affect pathologic diagnoses.

“We are conducting a separate ancillary study in conjunction with our dermatopathology colleagues to investigate this question,” the investigators said.

The work was funded by Duke and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Williams had no disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Williams LK et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):311-8.

The median highest pain score in a randomized trial of 38 women undergoing vulvar biopsies was 25.7 mm lower, on a 100 mm visual analogue scale, when they received 5% lidocaine-prilocaine cream instead of a 1% lidocaine injection, according to a report from Duke University, in Durham, N.C.

“In the current study, we found that application of lidocaine-prilocaine cream, alone, for a minimum of 10 minutes before vulvar biopsy on a non–hair-bearing surface results in a significantly lower maximum pain score and a significantly better patient rating of the biopsy experience,” said investigators led by Logan K. Williams, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Given the “clear advantage” of the cream, it “should be considered as an anesthetic method for vulvar biopsy in a non-hair-bearing area,” Dr. Williams and colleagues concluded (Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135{2]:311-8).

Studies have pitted the cream against the injection before, but they did not compare patients’ maximal pain scores. The team wanted to do that because “comparing the highest score allows us to consider the possibility that the pain of anesthesia application” – injection versus cream – “may be greater than the pain of any other portion of the biopsy procedure.”

They randomized 19 women to the cream, approximately 5 g at the site of biopsy at least 10 minutes beforehand, and 18 others to the injection, 2 mL using a 27-gauge needle, at least 1 minute prior.

The median highest pain score in the lidocaine-prilocaine group was 20 mm, but 56.5 mm in the injection group. Patients randomized to lidocaine-prilocaine also had a significantly better (P = 0.02) experience than those receiving injected lidocaine, also assessed by visual analog scale (VAS). The median baseline pain level was 0 mm.

Anxiety was assessed after patients knew whether they were going to get the cream or the injection, but before the biopsy. The median score in the cream group was of 19 mm on another VAS, compared with 31.5 mm.

The team had planned to enroll 106 women, but given the results on interim analysis, they stopped the trial early.

Participants were 60 years old on average, and almost all had prior vulvar biopsies. Two in the cream group and three in the injection group had punch biopsies; cervical biopsy forceps were used for the rest. More than half the women had benign findings, and most of the others had vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia, but there was one invasive cancer. At Duke, the cost of the injection was $0.99, compared with $7.36 for the cream.

Dr. Williams and colleagues cited a few limitations. One is that the patients and clinicians in the study were not blinded. Another is that most of the patients had undergone vulvar biopsy before, possibly predisposing them to bias.

“In the future, consideration could be taken to studying lidocaine-prilocaine cream applications to hair-bearing surfaces, which were excluded in this study.” Also, “there is a question of the histologic effect of lidocaine-prilocaine on tissues and whether this could affect pathologic diagnoses.

“We are conducting a separate ancillary study in conjunction with our dermatopathology colleagues to investigate this question,” the investigators said.

The work was funded by Duke and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Williams had no disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Williams LK et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):311-8.

The median highest pain score in a randomized trial of 38 women undergoing vulvar biopsies was 25.7 mm lower, on a 100 mm visual analogue scale, when they received 5% lidocaine-prilocaine cream instead of a 1% lidocaine injection, according to a report from Duke University, in Durham, N.C.

“In the current study, we found that application of lidocaine-prilocaine cream, alone, for a minimum of 10 minutes before vulvar biopsy on a non–hair-bearing surface results in a significantly lower maximum pain score and a significantly better patient rating of the biopsy experience,” said investigators led by Logan K. Williams, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Given the “clear advantage” of the cream, it “should be considered as an anesthetic method for vulvar biopsy in a non-hair-bearing area,” Dr. Williams and colleagues concluded (Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135{2]:311-8).

Studies have pitted the cream against the injection before, but they did not compare patients’ maximal pain scores. The team wanted to do that because “comparing the highest score allows us to consider the possibility that the pain of anesthesia application” – injection versus cream – “may be greater than the pain of any other portion of the biopsy procedure.”

They randomized 19 women to the cream, approximately 5 g at the site of biopsy at least 10 minutes beforehand, and 18 others to the injection, 2 mL using a 27-gauge needle, at least 1 minute prior.

The median highest pain score in the lidocaine-prilocaine group was 20 mm, but 56.5 mm in the injection group. Patients randomized to lidocaine-prilocaine also had a significantly better (P = 0.02) experience than those receiving injected lidocaine, also assessed by visual analog scale (VAS). The median baseline pain level was 0 mm.

Anxiety was assessed after patients knew whether they were going to get the cream or the injection, but before the biopsy. The median score in the cream group was of 19 mm on another VAS, compared with 31.5 mm.

The team had planned to enroll 106 women, but given the results on interim analysis, they stopped the trial early.

Participants were 60 years old on average, and almost all had prior vulvar biopsies. Two in the cream group and three in the injection group had punch biopsies; cervical biopsy forceps were used for the rest. More than half the women had benign findings, and most of the others had vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia, but there was one invasive cancer. At Duke, the cost of the injection was $0.99, compared with $7.36 for the cream.

Dr. Williams and colleagues cited a few limitations. One is that the patients and clinicians in the study were not blinded. Another is that most of the patients had undergone vulvar biopsy before, possibly predisposing them to bias.

“In the future, consideration could be taken to studying lidocaine-prilocaine cream applications to hair-bearing surfaces, which were excluded in this study.” Also, “there is a question of the histologic effect of lidocaine-prilocaine on tissues and whether this could affect pathologic diagnoses.

“We are conducting a separate ancillary study in conjunction with our dermatopathology colleagues to investigate this question,” the investigators said.

The work was funded by Duke and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Williams had no disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Williams LK et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):311-8.

GRAPEVINE, TEX. – Blood pressure categories created by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) in 2017 identify patients with increased risk of preeclampsia, preterm birth, and perinatal death when applied to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, according to a retrospective study presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

The absolute risk increases are small, and it is unknown whether treating these patients differently would be beneficial, said study author Martha Tesfalul, MD, maternal-fetal medicine clinical fellow at University of California, San Francisco. Nevertheless, the associations suggest that patients with hypertension during the first 20 weeks may benefit from additional monitoring and counseling, Dr. Tesfalul said.

Cutoffs with unclear implications

The ACC/AHA in November 2017 reclassified blood pressure in nonpregnant adults, but “implications of these categories in pregnancy are still unclear,” Dr. Tesfalul and colleagues said. Under the guidelines, normal blood pressure is systolic blood pressure less than 120 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure less than 80 mm Hg. Elevated blood pressure is defined as systolic blood pressure between 120 and 129 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure less than 80 mm Hg. Stage 1 hypertension is systolic blood pressure between 130 and 139 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 89 mm Hg. And stage 2 hypertension is systolic blood pressure of at least 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure of at least 90 mm Hg.

For the present analysis, the researchers retrospectively compared obstetric and perinatal outcomes for approximately 6,000 pregnancies at an academic center for which they had at least one blood pressure measurement prior to 20 weeks. The highest measurement was used to identify women with normal blood pressure, elevated blood pressure, or stage 1 hypertension according to the 2017 thresholds.

The researchers included singleton pregnancies with delivery between January 2014 and October 2017. They excluded patients with a prior diagnosis of chronic hypertension, autoimmune or chronic renal disease, or fetal anomalies. They examined rates of gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, preterm birth, neonatal intensive care admission, and perinatal death.

Adjusted relative risks

Dr. Tesfalul and colleagues identified about 3,500 pregnancies with normal blood pressure, more than 1,300 pregnancies with elevated blood pressure, and nearly 1,100 pregnancies with stage 1 hypertension.

After adjusting for relevant covariates – maternal age, nulliparity, race, body mass index, in vitro fertilization, tobacco use, pregestational diabetes, and aspirin use – elevated blood pressure and stage 1 hypertension were associated with a higher risk of preeclampsia and severe preeclampsia, relative to normal blood pressure. The proportion of patients with preeclampsia was 5.7% in the normal blood pressure group, 11.7% in the elevated blood pressure group (adjusted relative risk, 1.8), and 15% in the stage 1 hypertension group (adjusted RR, 2.1). The proportion with preeclampsia with severe features was 3.1% in the normal blood pressure group, 5.7% in the elevated blood pressure group (adjusted RR, 1.6), and 6.8% in the stage 1 hypertension group (adjusted RR, 1.8).

In addition, stage 1 hypertension, compared with normal blood pressure, was associated with increased odds of preterm birth at less than 37 weeks (7.9% vs. 5.1%; adjusted RR, 1.4) and perinatal death (0.7% vs. 0.4%; adjusted RR, 2.8).

“Patients with elevated blood pressure and stage 1 hypertension prior to 20 weeks are at increased risk of adverse outcomes,” the authors concluded. “Further research [is] needed to determine optimal care of patients with elevated blood pressure and stage 1 hypertension in pregnancy.”

Dr. Tesfalul receives support from the Foundation for SMFM.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Tesfalul M et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;222(1):S92-3, Abstract 119.

GRAPEVINE, TEX. – Blood pressure categories created by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) in 2017 identify patients with increased risk of preeclampsia, preterm birth, and perinatal death when applied to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, according to a retrospective study presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

The absolute risk increases are small, and it is unknown whether treating these patients differently would be beneficial, said study author Martha Tesfalul, MD, maternal-fetal medicine clinical fellow at University of California, San Francisco. Nevertheless, the associations suggest that patients with hypertension during the first 20 weeks may benefit from additional monitoring and counseling, Dr. Tesfalul said.

Cutoffs with unclear implications

The ACC/AHA in November 2017 reclassified blood pressure in nonpregnant adults, but “implications of these categories in pregnancy are still unclear,” Dr. Tesfalul and colleagues said. Under the guidelines, normal blood pressure is systolic blood pressure less than 120 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure less than 80 mm Hg. Elevated blood pressure is defined as systolic blood pressure between 120 and 129 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure less than 80 mm Hg. Stage 1 hypertension is systolic blood pressure between 130 and 139 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 89 mm Hg. And stage 2 hypertension is systolic blood pressure of at least 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure of at least 90 mm Hg.

For the present analysis, the researchers retrospectively compared obstetric and perinatal outcomes for approximately 6,000 pregnancies at an academic center for which they had at least one blood pressure measurement prior to 20 weeks. The highest measurement was used to identify women with normal blood pressure, elevated blood pressure, or stage 1 hypertension according to the 2017 thresholds.

The researchers included singleton pregnancies with delivery between January 2014 and October 2017. They excluded patients with a prior diagnosis of chronic hypertension, autoimmune or chronic renal disease, or fetal anomalies. They examined rates of gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, preterm birth, neonatal intensive care admission, and perinatal death.

Adjusted relative risks

Dr. Tesfalul and colleagues identified about 3,500 pregnancies with normal blood pressure, more than 1,300 pregnancies with elevated blood pressure, and nearly 1,100 pregnancies with stage 1 hypertension.

After adjusting for relevant covariates – maternal age, nulliparity, race, body mass index, in vitro fertilization, tobacco use, pregestational diabetes, and aspirin use – elevated blood pressure and stage 1 hypertension were associated with a higher risk of preeclampsia and severe preeclampsia, relative to normal blood pressure. The proportion of patients with preeclampsia was 5.7% in the normal blood pressure group, 11.7% in the elevated blood pressure group (adjusted relative risk, 1.8), and 15% in the stage 1 hypertension group (adjusted RR, 2.1). The proportion with preeclampsia with severe features was 3.1% in the normal blood pressure group, 5.7% in the elevated blood pressure group (adjusted RR, 1.6), and 6.8% in the stage 1 hypertension group (adjusted RR, 1.8).

In addition, stage 1 hypertension, compared with normal blood pressure, was associated with increased odds of preterm birth at less than 37 weeks (7.9% vs. 5.1%; adjusted RR, 1.4) and perinatal death (0.7% vs. 0.4%; adjusted RR, 2.8).

“Patients with elevated blood pressure and stage 1 hypertension prior to 20 weeks are at increased risk of adverse outcomes,” the authors concluded. “Further research [is] needed to determine optimal care of patients with elevated blood pressure and stage 1 hypertension in pregnancy.”

Dr. Tesfalul receives support from the Foundation for SMFM.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Tesfalul M et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;222(1):S92-3, Abstract 119.

GRAPEVINE, TEX. – Blood pressure categories created by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) in 2017 identify patients with increased risk of preeclampsia, preterm birth, and perinatal death when applied to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, according to a retrospective study presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

The absolute risk increases are small, and it is unknown whether treating these patients differently would be beneficial, said study author Martha Tesfalul, MD, maternal-fetal medicine clinical fellow at University of California, San Francisco. Nevertheless, the associations suggest that patients with hypertension during the first 20 weeks may benefit from additional monitoring and counseling, Dr. Tesfalul said.

Cutoffs with unclear implications

The ACC/AHA in November 2017 reclassified blood pressure in nonpregnant adults, but “implications of these categories in pregnancy are still unclear,” Dr. Tesfalul and colleagues said. Under the guidelines, normal blood pressure is systolic blood pressure less than 120 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure less than 80 mm Hg. Elevated blood pressure is defined as systolic blood pressure between 120 and 129 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure less than 80 mm Hg. Stage 1 hypertension is systolic blood pressure between 130 and 139 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 89 mm Hg. And stage 2 hypertension is systolic blood pressure of at least 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure of at least 90 mm Hg.

For the present analysis, the researchers retrospectively compared obstetric and perinatal outcomes for approximately 6,000 pregnancies at an academic center for which they had at least one blood pressure measurement prior to 20 weeks. The highest measurement was used to identify women with normal blood pressure, elevated blood pressure, or stage 1 hypertension according to the 2017 thresholds.

The researchers included singleton pregnancies with delivery between January 2014 and October 2017. They excluded patients with a prior diagnosis of chronic hypertension, autoimmune or chronic renal disease, or fetal anomalies. They examined rates of gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, preterm birth, neonatal intensive care admission, and perinatal death.

Adjusted relative risks

Dr. Tesfalul and colleagues identified about 3,500 pregnancies with normal blood pressure, more than 1,300 pregnancies with elevated blood pressure, and nearly 1,100 pregnancies with stage 1 hypertension.

After adjusting for relevant covariates – maternal age, nulliparity, race, body mass index, in vitro fertilization, tobacco use, pregestational diabetes, and aspirin use – elevated blood pressure and stage 1 hypertension were associated with a higher risk of preeclampsia and severe preeclampsia, relative to normal blood pressure. The proportion of patients with preeclampsia was 5.7% in the normal blood pressure group, 11.7% in the elevated blood pressure group (adjusted relative risk, 1.8), and 15% in the stage 1 hypertension group (adjusted RR, 2.1). The proportion with preeclampsia with severe features was 3.1% in the normal blood pressure group, 5.7% in the elevated blood pressure group (adjusted RR, 1.6), and 6.8% in the stage 1 hypertension group (adjusted RR, 1.8).

In addition, stage 1 hypertension, compared with normal blood pressure, was associated with increased odds of preterm birth at less than 37 weeks (7.9% vs. 5.1%; adjusted RR, 1.4) and perinatal death (0.7% vs. 0.4%; adjusted RR, 2.8).

“Patients with elevated blood pressure and stage 1 hypertension prior to 20 weeks are at increased risk of adverse outcomes,” the authors concluded. “Further research [is] needed to determine optimal care of patients with elevated blood pressure and stage 1 hypertension in pregnancy.”

Dr. Tesfalul receives support from the Foundation for SMFM.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Tesfalul M et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;222(1):S92-3, Abstract 119.

GRAPEVINE, TEX.* – Pregnant women with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes had significantly less gestational weight gain if they had metformin exposure at any point in their pregnancies, with no differences in infant birth weight or postnatal infant hypoglycemia, according to research presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Kari Oakes/MDedge News

In a retrospective single-center review of 284 women without metformin exposure and 227 with metformin exposure in pregnancy, metformin exposure at any point in pregnancy was associated with a significantly greater chance of appropriate – rather than excessive – weight gain.

The relationship held true for the 169 women who had metformin in their first trimester of pregnancy. Here, 69% of women had appropriate weight gain using Institute of Medicine and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists standards, compared with 54% of the 282 women who had no metformin exposure (adjusted odds ratio 1.92, P = .003). A further 22% of women receiving metformin in their first trimester of pregnancy lost weight, compared with 9% of women without metformin exposure (aOR 2.11, P = .019). There was no significant difference between the two groups in infant birth weight.

Separately, study author Jacquelyn Adams, MD, and her colleagues analyzed outcomes for the full cohort of 227 women who received metformin at any point in their pregnancy, comparing them again to the 282 women who had not received metformin. Most women (85%) were on 2 g of metformin at the time of delivery. These results again showed a greater likelihood of appropriate weight gain in the metformin group (69%; aOR 1.85; P = .002). Maternal weight loss was seen in 20% of this group (aOR 1.98, P = .018). Infant birth weights were not significantly different between these two groups.

“We found that women who had been on metformin at any point in their pregnancy had more appropriate weight gain and less excessive weight gain,” said Dr. Adams, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “Actually, some women on metformin had even had a little bit of weight loss, with no difference in their baby’s birth weight. So that’s really exciting, because our starting prepregnancy body mass index was 33-36 [kg/m²], which is considered obese,” she said in an interview.

This is an important finding, said Dr. Adams, because previous work has shown that less weight gain in pregnancy is associated with lower risk for hypertension and preeclampsia, and lower rates of fetal macrosomia.

What about infant outcomes? Dr. Adams said that there were many concerns about metformin: “Would it affect baby outcome? Were those babies more likely to be hypoglycemic? Were they more likely to be growth restricted? Were they more likely to have issues in the NICU? And the answer was really, ‘No.’ ”

“So we can both help these women have appropriate weight gain and not have any negative effects on these babies,” she added.

Specifically, Dr. Adams and her coinvestigators found no significant differences between the groups in gestational age at birth, likelihood of neonatal ICU admission, Apgar scores, neonatal hypoglycemia, respiratory distress syndrome, or fetal death. Fetal growth restriction and anomalies occurred at a low and similar rate between the groups.

Dr. Adams said that she was not surprised to see that metformin was associated with less weight gain in pregnancy, but she was surprised at how highly significant the differences were with metformin use. “Metformin is first-line for diabetes in nonpregnant individuals because it’s associated with things like weight loss, and because of ease of use and lack of hypoglycemia – so I was really hoping to see this kind of result.”

Women receiving metformin were a mean 34 years old, while those who didn’t get metformin were 32 years old, a significant difference. Prepregnancy body mass index also was higher in those receiving metformin, and they were more likely to have a type 2 diabetes diagnosis. A similar proportion of both groups – about two-thirds – were white, and about 20% were Hispanic.

The lower weight gain seen in metformin-takers also might smooth the way post partum, said Dr. Adams. “My perception is that, when these women leave us, they might not have any primary care follow-up; they might not have anybody following their diabetes; and metformin is a very viable way to help them in their life outside of pregnancy.

“Not to mention that all the weight you gain in pregnancy, you do eventually have to lose post partum,” she added, “so having less pregnancy weight gain kind of sets them up for success in their postpregnancy life as well.”

Asked whether these results inform the ongoing question of whether insulin or metformin is the most appropriate first-line treatment for gestational diabetes, Dr. Adams first noted that “there’s a lot of crossover,” pointing out that over 60% of the participants in her study eventually also required insulin.

“It’s a question I would love to address in a head-to-head trial,” she said, adding that questions about metformin’s effects on the placenta and the potential for later deleterious effects require more study.

In her practice, Dr. Adams said that patients generally are discharged with a metformin prescription, and then meet with a diabetes educator 1 week after delivery to assess blood glucose levels and adjust medical management. Following that, a warm hand-off to a primary care practice who can continue management and education is optimal, she said.

In terms of next steps, “We would really love to look at metformin in the postpartum period,” said Dr. Adams. Ideally, future work could look for outcomes that extend beyond the 6- to 8-week postpartum follow-up visit. For example, she said, there are indications that women with insulin insensitivity might benefit from metformin while breastfeeding; it’s also possible that metformin might reduce the risk of postpartum preeclampsia.

Dr. Adams reported that she had no conflicts of interest and no outside sources of funding.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Adams J et al. SMFM 2020, Abstract 335.

*This story was updated 2/10/2020.

GRAPEVINE, TEX.* – Pregnant women with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes had significantly less gestational weight gain if they had metformin exposure at any point in their pregnancies, with no differences in infant birth weight or postnatal infant hypoglycemia, according to research presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Kari Oakes/MDedge News

In a retrospective single-center review of 284 women without metformin exposure and 227 with metformin exposure in pregnancy, metformin exposure at any point in pregnancy was associated with a significantly greater chance of appropriate – rather than excessive – weight gain.

The relationship held true for the 169 women who had metformin in their first trimester of pregnancy. Here, 69% of women had appropriate weight gain using Institute of Medicine and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists standards, compared with 54% of the 282 women who had no metformin exposure (adjusted odds ratio 1.92, P = .003). A further 22% of women receiving metformin in their first trimester of pregnancy lost weight, compared with 9% of women without metformin exposure (aOR 2.11, P = .019). There was no significant difference between the two groups in infant birth weight.

Separately, study author Jacquelyn Adams, MD, and her colleagues analyzed outcomes for the full cohort of 227 women who received metformin at any point in their pregnancy, comparing them again to the 282 women who had not received metformin. Most women (85%) were on 2 g of metformin at the time of delivery. These results again showed a greater likelihood of appropriate weight gain in the metformin group (69%; aOR 1.85; P = .002). Maternal weight loss was seen in 20% of this group (aOR 1.98, P = .018). Infant birth weights were not significantly different between these two groups.

“We found that women who had been on metformin at any point in their pregnancy had more appropriate weight gain and less excessive weight gain,” said Dr. Adams, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “Actually, some women on metformin had even had a little bit of weight loss, with no difference in their baby’s birth weight. So that’s really exciting, because our starting prepregnancy body mass index was 33-36 [kg/m²], which is considered obese,” she said in an interview.

This is an important finding, said Dr. Adams, because previous work has shown that less weight gain in pregnancy is associated with lower risk for hypertension and preeclampsia, and lower rates of fetal macrosomia.

What about infant outcomes? Dr. Adams said that there were many concerns about metformin: “Would it affect baby outcome? Were those babies more likely to be hypoglycemic? Were they more likely to be growth restricted? Were they more likely to have issues in the NICU? And the answer was really, ‘No.’ ”

“So we can both help these women have appropriate weight gain and not have any negative effects on these babies,” she added.

Specifically, Dr. Adams and her coinvestigators found no significant differences between the groups in gestational age at birth, likelihood of neonatal ICU admission, Apgar scores, neonatal hypoglycemia, respiratory distress syndrome, or fetal death. Fetal growth restriction and anomalies occurred at a low and similar rate between the groups.

Dr. Adams said that she was not surprised to see that metformin was associated with less weight gain in pregnancy, but she was surprised at how highly significant the differences were with metformin use. “Metformin is first-line for diabetes in nonpregnant individuals because it’s associated with things like weight loss, and because of ease of use and lack of hypoglycemia – so I was really hoping to see this kind of result.”

Women receiving metformin were a mean 34 years old, while those who didn’t get metformin were 32 years old, a significant difference. Prepregnancy body mass index also was higher in those receiving metformin, and they were more likely to have a type 2 diabetes diagnosis. A similar proportion of both groups – about two-thirds – were white, and about 20% were Hispanic.

The lower weight gain seen in metformin-takers also might smooth the way post partum, said Dr. Adams. “My perception is that, when these women leave us, they might not have any primary care follow-up; they might not have anybody following their diabetes; and metformin is a very viable way to help them in their life outside of pregnancy.

“Not to mention that all the weight you gain in pregnancy, you do eventually have to lose post partum,” she added, “so having less pregnancy weight gain kind of sets them up for success in their postpregnancy life as well.”

Asked whether these results inform the ongoing question of whether insulin or metformin is the most appropriate first-line treatment for gestational diabetes, Dr. Adams first noted that “there’s a lot of crossover,” pointing out that over 60% of the participants in her study eventually also required insulin.

“It’s a question I would love to address in a head-to-head trial,” she said, adding that questions about metformin’s effects on the placenta and the potential for later deleterious effects require more study.

In her practice, Dr. Adams said that patients generally are discharged with a metformin prescription, and then meet with a diabetes educator 1 week after delivery to assess blood glucose levels and adjust medical management. Following that, a warm hand-off to a primary care practice who can continue management and education is optimal, she said.

In terms of next steps, “We would really love to look at metformin in the postpartum period,” said Dr. Adams. Ideally, future work could look for outcomes that extend beyond the 6- to 8-week postpartum follow-up visit. For example, she said, there are indications that women with insulin insensitivity might benefit from metformin while breastfeeding; it’s also possible that metformin might reduce the risk of postpartum preeclampsia.

Dr. Adams reported that she had no conflicts of interest and no outside sources of funding.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Adams J et al. SMFM 2020, Abstract 335.

*This story was updated 2/10/2020.

GRAPEVINE, TEX.* – Pregnant women with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes had significantly less gestational weight gain if they had metformin exposure at any point in their pregnancies, with no differences in infant birth weight or postnatal infant hypoglycemia, according to research presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Kari Oakes/MDedge News

In a retrospective single-center review of 284 women without metformin exposure and 227 with metformin exposure in pregnancy, metformin exposure at any point in pregnancy was associated with a significantly greater chance of appropriate – rather than excessive – weight gain.

The relationship held true for the 169 women who had metformin in their first trimester of pregnancy. Here, 69% of women had appropriate weight gain using Institute of Medicine and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists standards, compared with 54% of the 282 women who had no metformin exposure (adjusted odds ratio 1.92, P = .003). A further 22% of women receiving metformin in their first trimester of pregnancy lost weight, compared with 9% of women without metformin exposure (aOR 2.11, P = .019). There was no significant difference between the two groups in infant birth weight.

Separately, study author Jacquelyn Adams, MD, and her colleagues analyzed outcomes for the full cohort of 227 women who received metformin at any point in their pregnancy, comparing them again to the 282 women who had not received metformin. Most women (85%) were on 2 g of metformin at the time of delivery. These results again showed a greater likelihood of appropriate weight gain in the metformin group (69%; aOR 1.85; P = .002). Maternal weight loss was seen in 20% of this group (aOR 1.98, P = .018). Infant birth weights were not significantly different between these two groups.

“We found that women who had been on metformin at any point in their pregnancy had more appropriate weight gain and less excessive weight gain,” said Dr. Adams, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “Actually, some women on metformin had even had a little bit of weight loss, with no difference in their baby’s birth weight. So that’s really exciting, because our starting prepregnancy body mass index was 33-36 [kg/m²], which is considered obese,” she said in an interview.

This is an important finding, said Dr. Adams, because previous work has shown that less weight gain in pregnancy is associated with lower risk for hypertension and preeclampsia, and lower rates of fetal macrosomia.

What about infant outcomes? Dr. Adams said that there were many concerns about metformin: “Would it affect baby outcome? Were those babies more likely to be hypoglycemic? Were they more likely to be growth restricted? Were they more likely to have issues in the NICU? And the answer was really, ‘No.’ ”

“So we can both help these women have appropriate weight gain and not have any negative effects on these babies,” she added.

Specifically, Dr. Adams and her coinvestigators found no significant differences between the groups in gestational age at birth, likelihood of neonatal ICU admission, Apgar scores, neonatal hypoglycemia, respiratory distress syndrome, or fetal death. Fetal growth restriction and anomalies occurred at a low and similar rate between the groups.

Dr. Adams said that she was not surprised to see that metformin was associated with less weight gain in pregnancy, but she was surprised at how highly significant the differences were with metformin use. “Metformin is first-line for diabetes in nonpregnant individuals because it’s associated with things like weight loss, and because of ease of use and lack of hypoglycemia – so I was really hoping to see this kind of result.”

Women receiving metformin were a mean 34 years old, while those who didn’t get metformin were 32 years old, a significant difference. Prepregnancy body mass index also was higher in those receiving metformin, and they were more likely to have a type 2 diabetes diagnosis. A similar proportion of both groups – about two-thirds – were white, and about 20% were Hispanic.

The lower weight gain seen in metformin-takers also might smooth the way post partum, said Dr. Adams. “My perception is that, when these women leave us, they might not have any primary care follow-up; they might not have anybody following their diabetes; and metformin is a very viable way to help them in their life outside of pregnancy.

“Not to mention that all the weight you gain in pregnancy, you do eventually have to lose post partum,” she added, “so having less pregnancy weight gain kind of sets them up for success in their postpregnancy life as well.”

Asked whether these results inform the ongoing question of whether insulin or metformin is the most appropriate first-line treatment for gestational diabetes, Dr. Adams first noted that “there’s a lot of crossover,” pointing out that over 60% of the participants in her study eventually also required insulin.

“It’s a question I would love to address in a head-to-head trial,” she said, adding that questions about metformin’s effects on the placenta and the potential for later deleterious effects require more study.

In her practice, Dr. Adams said that patients generally are discharged with a metformin prescription, and then meet with a diabetes educator 1 week after delivery to assess blood glucose levels and adjust medical management. Following that, a warm hand-off to a primary care practice who can continue management and education is optimal, she said.

In terms of next steps, “We would really love to look at metformin in the postpartum period,” said Dr. Adams. Ideally, future work could look for outcomes that extend beyond the 6- to 8-week postpartum follow-up visit. For example, she said, there are indications that women with insulin insensitivity might benefit from metformin while breastfeeding; it’s also possible that metformin might reduce the risk of postpartum preeclampsia.

Dr. Adams reported that she had no conflicts of interest and no outside sources of funding.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Adams J et al. SMFM 2020, Abstract 335.

*This story was updated 2/10/2020.