Women's Health

SAN FRANCISCO – It’s important to check for complementopathies in pregnant women with lupus, according to Michelle Petri, MD, a professor of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

A new diagnosis being developed at Hopkins and elsewhere, complementopathies involve an inappropriate activation of the alternative pathway of complement (APC), either from a mutation in a complement control protein, or, in the case of lupus, an autoantibody against one. They’ve been implicated as a major cause of hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, low platelets (HELLP) syndrome, a condition to which women with lupus are particularly prone.

Hopkins has developed a serum test to diagnose inappropriate APC activation in a few hours, the modified Ham test. When HELLP develops in a woman with a complementopathy, the complement inhibitor eculizumab (Soliris) is proving to be a safe alternative to pregnancy termination.

“I urge you to think about using the modified Ham test, because if it is positive, you can treat HELLP without having to stop the pregnancy,” said Dr. Petri, also codirector of the Hopkins Lupus Pregnancy Center.

Lupus management has come a long way from the days when women were counseled to avoid or terminate pregnancy. Risks remain, “but many pregnancies are successful. I think that for every woman with lupus, we do want to offer the possibility of successful pregnancy,” she said.

Disease control is key. Preterm birth, the most common adverse outcome in lupus, correlates closely with disease activity, and disease activity can be controlled with hydroxychloroquine, and, when needed, azathioprine and tacrolimus for renal flairs.

“But these kinds of basic lessons – we need hydroxychloroquine in pregnancy; we must control disease activity – are not heard out in the real world. Claims data have shown that pregnant women with lupus actually take fewer prescribed medications, and they have fewer rheumatology visits.” It’s a problem that needs to be addressed, Dr. Petri said.

Vitamin D is also important. Hopkins has shown that supplementation to hit a level of 40 ng/mL reduces both global and renal disease activity without toxicity; studies in the general population have shown reduced preeclampsia, preterm birth, and low birth weight, all concerns in lupus.

“I haven’t convinced the world of lupus how important vitamin D is,” but “I actually love it just as much as I love hydroxychloroquine,” Dr. Petri said.

Cosupplementation with calcium complicates matters. Together, they seem to reduce the risk of preeclampsia, but increase the risk of preterm birth. More needs to be known, so “for all of us with pregnancy cohorts, it’s time to start to record vitamin D and calcium levels so we can look at this,” she said.

Dr. Petri has worked with numerous companies.

aotto@mdedge.com

SAN FRANCISCO – It’s important to check for complementopathies in pregnant women with lupus, according to Michelle Petri, MD, a professor of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

A new diagnosis being developed at Hopkins and elsewhere, complementopathies involve an inappropriate activation of the alternative pathway of complement (APC), either from a mutation in a complement control protein, or, in the case of lupus, an autoantibody against one. They’ve been implicated as a major cause of hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, low platelets (HELLP) syndrome, a condition to which women with lupus are particularly prone.

Hopkins has developed a serum test to diagnose inappropriate APC activation in a few hours, the modified Ham test. When HELLP develops in a woman with a complementopathy, the complement inhibitor eculizumab (Soliris) is proving to be a safe alternative to pregnancy termination.

“I urge you to think about using the modified Ham test, because if it is positive, you can treat HELLP without having to stop the pregnancy,” said Dr. Petri, also codirector of the Hopkins Lupus Pregnancy Center.

Lupus management has come a long way from the days when women were counseled to avoid or terminate pregnancy. Risks remain, “but many pregnancies are successful. I think that for every woman with lupus, we do want to offer the possibility of successful pregnancy,” she said.

Disease control is key. Preterm birth, the most common adverse outcome in lupus, correlates closely with disease activity, and disease activity can be controlled with hydroxychloroquine, and, when needed, azathioprine and tacrolimus for renal flairs.

“But these kinds of basic lessons – we need hydroxychloroquine in pregnancy; we must control disease activity – are not heard out in the real world. Claims data have shown that pregnant women with lupus actually take fewer prescribed medications, and they have fewer rheumatology visits.” It’s a problem that needs to be addressed, Dr. Petri said.

Vitamin D is also important. Hopkins has shown that supplementation to hit a level of 40 ng/mL reduces both global and renal disease activity without toxicity; studies in the general population have shown reduced preeclampsia, preterm birth, and low birth weight, all concerns in lupus.

“I haven’t convinced the world of lupus how important vitamin D is,” but “I actually love it just as much as I love hydroxychloroquine,” Dr. Petri said.

Cosupplementation with calcium complicates matters. Together, they seem to reduce the risk of preeclampsia, but increase the risk of preterm birth. More needs to be known, so “for all of us with pregnancy cohorts, it’s time to start to record vitamin D and calcium levels so we can look at this,” she said.

Dr. Petri has worked with numerous companies.

aotto@mdedge.com

SAN FRANCISCO – It’s important to check for complementopathies in pregnant women with lupus, according to Michelle Petri, MD, a professor of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

A new diagnosis being developed at Hopkins and elsewhere, complementopathies involve an inappropriate activation of the alternative pathway of complement (APC), either from a mutation in a complement control protein, or, in the case of lupus, an autoantibody against one. They’ve been implicated as a major cause of hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, low platelets (HELLP) syndrome, a condition to which women with lupus are particularly prone.

Hopkins has developed a serum test to diagnose inappropriate APC activation in a few hours, the modified Ham test. When HELLP develops in a woman with a complementopathy, the complement inhibitor eculizumab (Soliris) is proving to be a safe alternative to pregnancy termination.

“I urge you to think about using the modified Ham test, because if it is positive, you can treat HELLP without having to stop the pregnancy,” said Dr. Petri, also codirector of the Hopkins Lupus Pregnancy Center.

Lupus management has come a long way from the days when women were counseled to avoid or terminate pregnancy. Risks remain, “but many pregnancies are successful. I think that for every woman with lupus, we do want to offer the possibility of successful pregnancy,” she said.

Disease control is key. Preterm birth, the most common adverse outcome in lupus, correlates closely with disease activity, and disease activity can be controlled with hydroxychloroquine, and, when needed, azathioprine and tacrolimus for renal flairs.

“But these kinds of basic lessons – we need hydroxychloroquine in pregnancy; we must control disease activity – are not heard out in the real world. Claims data have shown that pregnant women with lupus actually take fewer prescribed medications, and they have fewer rheumatology visits.” It’s a problem that needs to be addressed, Dr. Petri said.

Vitamin D is also important. Hopkins has shown that supplementation to hit a level of 40 ng/mL reduces both global and renal disease activity without toxicity; studies in the general population have shown reduced preeclampsia, preterm birth, and low birth weight, all concerns in lupus.

“I haven’t convinced the world of lupus how important vitamin D is,” but “I actually love it just as much as I love hydroxychloroquine,” Dr. Petri said.

Cosupplementation with calcium complicates matters. Together, they seem to reduce the risk of preeclampsia, but increase the risk of preterm birth. More needs to be known, so “for all of us with pregnancy cohorts, it’s time to start to record vitamin D and calcium levels so we can look at this,” she said.

Dr. Petri has worked with numerous companies.

aotto@mdedge.com

Pharmacists in Oregon with the authority to prescribe hormonal contraceptive therapy have improved access to and continuation of contraceptive therapy, based on two retrospective studies of Medicaid patients published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Additionally, the safety profile associated with pharmacist prescribing of hormonal contraceptive therapy was on par with that of other prescribing clinicians.

“In the first 2 years of program implementation, we found evidence that pharmacists were safely reaching new contraceptive users and [helping to meet national goals in reducing unwanted pregnancy],” Lorinda Anderson, PharmD, and colleagues, the authors of one of the studies, wrote.

In 2016, Oregon became the first state to grant pharmacists authority to prescribe hormonal contraception without requiring consultation. The findings suggest that expanding prescribing authority for contraceptive therapy to pharmacists in other states could limit barriers to access, as 90% of United States residents live within 5 miles of a pharmacy.

In one of the two studies, Maria I. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, and colleagues conducted a claims-based review of the primary outcomes of pharmacist-initiated and non-pharmacist-initiated prescriptions on unintended pregnancies in Oregon’s Medicaid program. They also evaluated secondary outcomes, such as costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

In the first 2 years after the Oregon law went into effect, 248 pharmacists wrote 1,313, or 10%, of all hormonal contraception prescriptions for women who were Medicaid recipients and were prescribed hormonal contraception by any legally allowed healthcare provider. Pharmacists prescribed hormonal contraception for 367 of the 3,614 women studied.

Based on an economic model, pharmacist-initiated hormonal contraceptive therapy prevented an estimated 51 unintended pregnancies and saved $1.6 million in the first two years following the program’s inception in Oregon. Quality of life improved with 158 QALYs per 198,100 women.

Additionally, pharmacist-provided services cost less per patient than non pharmacist health care provider-services, $28 vs. $81.

“We believe our findings to be conservative given that our model was based on use 24 months after implementation. We expect over time that knowledge of and use of contraceptive access from pharmacists will increase,” Dr. Rodriguez, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues wrote.

In the second study, Dr. Anderson, of the Oregon State University, Corvallis, and colleagues pooled Oregon Medicaid pharmacy claims, eligibility, medical, diagnostic, and demographic data over the 2-year period for the 3,614 patients who received new prescriptions for transdermal and oral contraception, and the 1,313 claims filed for 367 women prescribed contraception by 162 pharmacists.

Within the first 4 months following the program’s inception in Oregon, pharmacists averaged 40 contraceptive claims per month. Over the next 7 months, claims increased to 61 and peaked at 80 claims after 18 months. Chain community pharmacies accounted for 94% of the claims; 71% of claims were in metropolitan areas.

Based on demographics, 73.8% of the women who were prescribed contraception by a pharmacist were first-time recipients. Combined oral contraception was prescribed for 90.5% of the women, and 82% of the women were 18-35 years of age. In the 180-day period prior to receiving pharmacist-prescribed contraception, 61.5% of patients were not using contraception but were attempting to engage in pharmacy-provided hormonal contraceptive care.

The researchers also examined contraceptive safety by looking at whether patients with medical contraindications (Medical Eligibility Criteria Category 3 or 4) were receiving contraindicated methods. “We found that overall adherence to the clinical algorithm for prescribing pharmacists was high. Only 12 (5%) patients were identified as having Medical Eligibility Criteria Category 3 or 4 medical conditions, and two (less than 1%) patients with medications contraindicating OC use received a prescription,” Dr. Anderson and her colleagues wrote.

They noted that the initial legislation passed in Oregon only included oral and transdermal hormonal contraception as methods pharmacists could prescribe. In 2017, with implementation in 2018, this was amended to include the vaginal ring and injection. “As the program matures, and contracts with additional insurers are implemented at pharmacies, we expect the number of pharmacist prescriptions to increase,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Rodriguez reported financial compensation from Merck, the World Health Organization, CooperSurgical, and a previous relationship with Merck. Dr. Anderson reports no conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Rodriguez M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1238-46; Anderson A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1231-7.


 

Pharmacists in Oregon with the authority to prescribe hormonal contraceptive therapy have improved access to and continuation of contraceptive therapy, based on two retrospective studies of Medicaid patients published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Additionally, the safety profile associated with pharmacist prescribing of hormonal contraceptive therapy was on par with that of other prescribing clinicians.

“In the first 2 years of program implementation, we found evidence that pharmacists were safely reaching new contraceptive users and [helping to meet national goals in reducing unwanted pregnancy],” Lorinda Anderson, PharmD, and colleagues, the authors of one of the studies, wrote.

In 2016, Oregon became the first state to grant pharmacists authority to prescribe hormonal contraception without requiring consultation. The findings suggest that expanding prescribing authority for contraceptive therapy to pharmacists in other states could limit barriers to access, as 90% of United States residents live within 5 miles of a pharmacy.

In one of the two studies, Maria I. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, and colleagues conducted a claims-based review of the primary outcomes of pharmacist-initiated and non-pharmacist-initiated prescriptions on unintended pregnancies in Oregon’s Medicaid program. They also evaluated secondary outcomes, such as costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

In the first 2 years after the Oregon law went into effect, 248 pharmacists wrote 1,313, or 10%, of all hormonal contraception prescriptions for women who were Medicaid recipients and were prescribed hormonal contraception by any legally allowed healthcare provider. Pharmacists prescribed hormonal contraception for 367 of the 3,614 women studied.

Based on an economic model, pharmacist-initiated hormonal contraceptive therapy prevented an estimated 51 unintended pregnancies and saved $1.6 million in the first two years following the program’s inception in Oregon. Quality of life improved with 158 QALYs per 198,100 women.

Additionally, pharmacist-provided services cost less per patient than non pharmacist health care provider-services, $28 vs. $81.

“We believe our findings to be conservative given that our model was based on use 24 months after implementation. We expect over time that knowledge of and use of contraceptive access from pharmacists will increase,” Dr. Rodriguez, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues wrote.

In the second study, Dr. Anderson, of the Oregon State University, Corvallis, and colleagues pooled Oregon Medicaid pharmacy claims, eligibility, medical, diagnostic, and demographic data over the 2-year period for the 3,614 patients who received new prescriptions for transdermal and oral contraception, and the 1,313 claims filed for 367 women prescribed contraception by 162 pharmacists.

Within the first 4 months following the program’s inception in Oregon, pharmacists averaged 40 contraceptive claims per month. Over the next 7 months, claims increased to 61 and peaked at 80 claims after 18 months. Chain community pharmacies accounted for 94% of the claims; 71% of claims were in metropolitan areas.

Based on demographics, 73.8% of the women who were prescribed contraception by a pharmacist were first-time recipients. Combined oral contraception was prescribed for 90.5% of the women, and 82% of the women were 18-35 years of age. In the 180-day period prior to receiving pharmacist-prescribed contraception, 61.5% of patients were not using contraception but were attempting to engage in pharmacy-provided hormonal contraceptive care.

The researchers also examined contraceptive safety by looking at whether patients with medical contraindications (Medical Eligibility Criteria Category 3 or 4) were receiving contraindicated methods. “We found that overall adherence to the clinical algorithm for prescribing pharmacists was high. Only 12 (5%) patients were identified as having Medical Eligibility Criteria Category 3 or 4 medical conditions, and two (less than 1%) patients with medications contraindicating OC use received a prescription,” Dr. Anderson and her colleagues wrote.

They noted that the initial legislation passed in Oregon only included oral and transdermal hormonal contraception as methods pharmacists could prescribe. In 2017, with implementation in 2018, this was amended to include the vaginal ring and injection. “As the program matures, and contracts with additional insurers are implemented at pharmacies, we expect the number of pharmacist prescriptions to increase,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Rodriguez reported financial compensation from Merck, the World Health Organization, CooperSurgical, and a previous relationship with Merck. Dr. Anderson reports no conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Rodriguez M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1238-46; Anderson A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1231-7.


 

Pharmacists in Oregon with the authority to prescribe hormonal contraceptive therapy have improved access to and continuation of contraceptive therapy, based on two retrospective studies of Medicaid patients published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Additionally, the safety profile associated with pharmacist prescribing of hormonal contraceptive therapy was on par with that of other prescribing clinicians.

“In the first 2 years of program implementation, we found evidence that pharmacists were safely reaching new contraceptive users and [helping to meet national goals in reducing unwanted pregnancy],” Lorinda Anderson, PharmD, and colleagues, the authors of one of the studies, wrote.

In 2016, Oregon became the first state to grant pharmacists authority to prescribe hormonal contraception without requiring consultation. The findings suggest that expanding prescribing authority for contraceptive therapy to pharmacists in other states could limit barriers to access, as 90% of United States residents live within 5 miles of a pharmacy.

In one of the two studies, Maria I. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, and colleagues conducted a claims-based review of the primary outcomes of pharmacist-initiated and non-pharmacist-initiated prescriptions on unintended pregnancies in Oregon’s Medicaid program. They also evaluated secondary outcomes, such as costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

In the first 2 years after the Oregon law went into effect, 248 pharmacists wrote 1,313, or 10%, of all hormonal contraception prescriptions for women who were Medicaid recipients and were prescribed hormonal contraception by any legally allowed healthcare provider. Pharmacists prescribed hormonal contraception for 367 of the 3,614 women studied.

Based on an economic model, pharmacist-initiated hormonal contraceptive therapy prevented an estimated 51 unintended pregnancies and saved $1.6 million in the first two years following the program’s inception in Oregon. Quality of life improved with 158 QALYs per 198,100 women.

Additionally, pharmacist-provided services cost less per patient than non pharmacist health care provider-services, $28 vs. $81.

“We believe our findings to be conservative given that our model was based on use 24 months after implementation. We expect over time that knowledge of and use of contraceptive access from pharmacists will increase,” Dr. Rodriguez, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues wrote.

In the second study, Dr. Anderson, of the Oregon State University, Corvallis, and colleagues pooled Oregon Medicaid pharmacy claims, eligibility, medical, diagnostic, and demographic data over the 2-year period for the 3,614 patients who received new prescriptions for transdermal and oral contraception, and the 1,313 claims filed for 367 women prescribed contraception by 162 pharmacists.

Within the first 4 months following the program’s inception in Oregon, pharmacists averaged 40 contraceptive claims per month. Over the next 7 months, claims increased to 61 and peaked at 80 claims after 18 months. Chain community pharmacies accounted for 94% of the claims; 71% of claims were in metropolitan areas.

Based on demographics, 73.8% of the women who were prescribed contraception by a pharmacist were first-time recipients. Combined oral contraception was prescribed for 90.5% of the women, and 82% of the women were 18-35 years of age. In the 180-day period prior to receiving pharmacist-prescribed contraception, 61.5% of patients were not using contraception but were attempting to engage in pharmacy-provided hormonal contraceptive care.

The researchers also examined contraceptive safety by looking at whether patients with medical contraindications (Medical Eligibility Criteria Category 3 or 4) were receiving contraindicated methods. “We found that overall adherence to the clinical algorithm for prescribing pharmacists was high. Only 12 (5%) patients were identified as having Medical Eligibility Criteria Category 3 or 4 medical conditions, and two (less than 1%) patients with medications contraindicating OC use received a prescription,” Dr. Anderson and her colleagues wrote.

They noted that the initial legislation passed in Oregon only included oral and transdermal hormonal contraception as methods pharmacists could prescribe. In 2017, with implementation in 2018, this was amended to include the vaginal ring and injection. “As the program matures, and contracts with additional insurers are implemented at pharmacies, we expect the number of pharmacist prescriptions to increase,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Rodriguez reported financial compensation from Merck, the World Health Organization, CooperSurgical, and a previous relationship with Merck. Dr. Anderson reports no conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Rodriguez M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1238-46; Anderson A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1231-7.


 

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – Delivery by C-section – especially when elective – carries a significantly higher hospitalization risk for severe infection in the first 5 years of life than vaginal delivery in a study of nearly 7.3 million singleton deliveries in four asset-rich countries, David Burgner, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This is something that obstetricians might need to consider when discussing with the family the pros and cons for an elective C-section, particularly one that isn’t otherwise indicated for the baby or the mother,” said Dr. Burgner of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Melbourne.

He presented an observational study of 7.29 million singleton births in Denmark, Great Britain, Scotland, and two Australian states during 1996-2015. C-section rates ranged from a low of 17.5% in Denmark to 29.4% in Western Australia, all of which are greater than the 10%-15% rate endorsed by the World Health Organization. Elective C-section rates varied by country from 39% to 57%. Of note, pediatric hospital care in all four countries is free, so economic considerations didn’t drive admission.

The impetus for this international collaboration was to gain new insight into the differential susceptibility to childhood infection, he explained.

“We know from our clinical practice that pretty much all of the children are exposed to pretty much all potentially serious pathogens during early life. And yet it’s only a minority that develop severe infection. It’s an extremely interesting scientific question and an extremely important clinical question as to what’s driving that differential susceptibility,” according to the pediatric infectious disease specialist.

There are a number of established risk factors for infection-related hospitalization in children, including parental smoking, maternal antibiotic exposure during pregnancy, and growth measurements at birth. Dr. Burgner and coinvestigators hypothesized that another important risk factor is the nature of the microbiome transmitted from mother to baby during delivery. This postnatal microbiome varies depending upon mode of delivery: Vaginal delivery transmits the maternal enteric microbiome, which they reasoned might be through direct immunomodulation that sets up protective immune responses early in life, especially against respiratory and gastrointestinal tract infections. In contrast, delivery by C-section causes the baby to pick up the maternal skin and hospital environment microbiomes, but not the maternal enteric microbiome.

Thus, the investigators hypothesized that C-section poses a greater risk of infection-related hospitalization during the first 5 years of life than does vaginal delivery, and that elective C-section poses a higher risk than does emergency C-section because it is more likely to involve rupture of membranes.

The center-specific rates of C-section and infection-related pediatric infection, when combined into a meta-analysis, bore out the study hypothesis. Emergency C-section was associated with a 9% greater risk of infection-related hospitalization through 5 years of age than was vaginal delivery, while elective C-section was associated with a 13% increased risk, both of which were statistically significant and clinically important.

“We were quite taken with these results. We think they provide evidence that C-section is consistently associated with infection-related hospitalization. It’s an association study that can’t prove causality, but the results implicate the postnatal microbiome as the most plausible explanation in terms of what’s driving this association,” according to Dr. Burgner.

The association between C-section and infection-related hospitalization was persistent throughout the preschool years. For example, the increased risk associated with elective C-section was 16% during age 0-3 months, 20% during months 4-6, 14% in months 7-12, 13% during ages 1-2 years, and 11% among 2- to 5-year-olds, he continued.

The increased risk of severe preschool infection was highest for upper and lower respiratory tract and gastrointestinal infections, which involve the organ systems most likely to experience direct inoculation of the maternal microbiome, he noted.

Because the investigators recognized that the study results were potentially vulnerable to confounding by indication – that is, that the reason for doing a C-section might itself confer increased risk of subsequent preschool infection-related hospitalization – they repeated their analysis in a predefined low-risk subpopulation. The results closely mirrored those in the overall study population: an 8% increased risk in the emergency C-section group and a 14% increased risk with elective C-section.

Results of this large multinational study should provide further support for ongoing research aimed at supporting the infant microbiome after delivery by C-section via vaginal microbial transfer and other methods, he observed.

Dr. Burgner reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was cosponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Danish Council for Independent Research, and nonprofit foundations.

bjancin@mdedge.com
 

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – Delivery by C-section – especially when elective – carries a significantly higher hospitalization risk for severe infection in the first 5 years of life than vaginal delivery in a study of nearly 7.3 million singleton deliveries in four asset-rich countries, David Burgner, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This is something that obstetricians might need to consider when discussing with the family the pros and cons for an elective C-section, particularly one that isn’t otherwise indicated for the baby or the mother,” said Dr. Burgner of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Melbourne.

He presented an observational study of 7.29 million singleton births in Denmark, Great Britain, Scotland, and two Australian states during 1996-2015. C-section rates ranged from a low of 17.5% in Denmark to 29.4% in Western Australia, all of which are greater than the 10%-15% rate endorsed by the World Health Organization. Elective C-section rates varied by country from 39% to 57%. Of note, pediatric hospital care in all four countries is free, so economic considerations didn’t drive admission.

The impetus for this international collaboration was to gain new insight into the differential susceptibility to childhood infection, he explained.

“We know from our clinical practice that pretty much all of the children are exposed to pretty much all potentially serious pathogens during early life. And yet it’s only a minority that develop severe infection. It’s an extremely interesting scientific question and an extremely important clinical question as to what’s driving that differential susceptibility,” according to the pediatric infectious disease specialist.

There are a number of established risk factors for infection-related hospitalization in children, including parental smoking, maternal antibiotic exposure during pregnancy, and growth measurements at birth. Dr. Burgner and coinvestigators hypothesized that another important risk factor is the nature of the microbiome transmitted from mother to baby during delivery. This postnatal microbiome varies depending upon mode of delivery: Vaginal delivery transmits the maternal enteric microbiome, which they reasoned might be through direct immunomodulation that sets up protective immune responses early in life, especially against respiratory and gastrointestinal tract infections. In contrast, delivery by C-section causes the baby to pick up the maternal skin and hospital environment microbiomes, but not the maternal enteric microbiome.

Thus, the investigators hypothesized that C-section poses a greater risk of infection-related hospitalization during the first 5 years of life than does vaginal delivery, and that elective C-section poses a higher risk than does emergency C-section because it is more likely to involve rupture of membranes.

The center-specific rates of C-section and infection-related pediatric infection, when combined into a meta-analysis, bore out the study hypothesis. Emergency C-section was associated with a 9% greater risk of infection-related hospitalization through 5 years of age than was vaginal delivery, while elective C-section was associated with a 13% increased risk, both of which were statistically significant and clinically important.

“We were quite taken with these results. We think they provide evidence that C-section is consistently associated with infection-related hospitalization. It’s an association study that can’t prove causality, but the results implicate the postnatal microbiome as the most plausible explanation in terms of what’s driving this association,” according to Dr. Burgner.

The association between C-section and infection-related hospitalization was persistent throughout the preschool years. For example, the increased risk associated with elective C-section was 16% during age 0-3 months, 20% during months 4-6, 14% in months 7-12, 13% during ages 1-2 years, and 11% among 2- to 5-year-olds, he continued.

The increased risk of severe preschool infection was highest for upper and lower respiratory tract and gastrointestinal infections, which involve the organ systems most likely to experience direct inoculation of the maternal microbiome, he noted.

Because the investigators recognized that the study results were potentially vulnerable to confounding by indication – that is, that the reason for doing a C-section might itself confer increased risk of subsequent preschool infection-related hospitalization – they repeated their analysis in a predefined low-risk subpopulation. The results closely mirrored those in the overall study population: an 8% increased risk in the emergency C-section group and a 14% increased risk with elective C-section.

Results of this large multinational study should provide further support for ongoing research aimed at supporting the infant microbiome after delivery by C-section via vaginal microbial transfer and other methods, he observed.

Dr. Burgner reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was cosponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Danish Council for Independent Research, and nonprofit foundations.

bjancin@mdedge.com
 

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – Delivery by C-section – especially when elective – carries a significantly higher hospitalization risk for severe infection in the first 5 years of life than vaginal delivery in a study of nearly 7.3 million singleton deliveries in four asset-rich countries, David Burgner, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This is something that obstetricians might need to consider when discussing with the family the pros and cons for an elective C-section, particularly one that isn’t otherwise indicated for the baby or the mother,” said Dr. Burgner of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Melbourne.

He presented an observational study of 7.29 million singleton births in Denmark, Great Britain, Scotland, and two Australian states during 1996-2015. C-section rates ranged from a low of 17.5% in Denmark to 29.4% in Western Australia, all of which are greater than the 10%-15% rate endorsed by the World Health Organization. Elective C-section rates varied by country from 39% to 57%. Of note, pediatric hospital care in all four countries is free, so economic considerations didn’t drive admission.

The impetus for this international collaboration was to gain new insight into the differential susceptibility to childhood infection, he explained.

“We know from our clinical practice that pretty much all of the children are exposed to pretty much all potentially serious pathogens during early life. And yet it’s only a minority that develop severe infection. It’s an extremely interesting scientific question and an extremely important clinical question as to what’s driving that differential susceptibility,” according to the pediatric infectious disease specialist.

There are a number of established risk factors for infection-related hospitalization in children, including parental smoking, maternal antibiotic exposure during pregnancy, and growth measurements at birth. Dr. Burgner and coinvestigators hypothesized that another important risk factor is the nature of the microbiome transmitted from mother to baby during delivery. This postnatal microbiome varies depending upon mode of delivery: Vaginal delivery transmits the maternal enteric microbiome, which they reasoned might be through direct immunomodulation that sets up protective immune responses early in life, especially against respiratory and gastrointestinal tract infections. In contrast, delivery by C-section causes the baby to pick up the maternal skin and hospital environment microbiomes, but not the maternal enteric microbiome.

Thus, the investigators hypothesized that C-section poses a greater risk of infection-related hospitalization during the first 5 years of life than does vaginal delivery, and that elective C-section poses a higher risk than does emergency C-section because it is more likely to involve rupture of membranes.

The center-specific rates of C-section and infection-related pediatric infection, when combined into a meta-analysis, bore out the study hypothesis. Emergency C-section was associated with a 9% greater risk of infection-related hospitalization through 5 years of age than was vaginal delivery, while elective C-section was associated with a 13% increased risk, both of which were statistically significant and clinically important.

“We were quite taken with these results. We think they provide evidence that C-section is consistently associated with infection-related hospitalization. It’s an association study that can’t prove causality, but the results implicate the postnatal microbiome as the most plausible explanation in terms of what’s driving this association,” according to Dr. Burgner.

The association between C-section and infection-related hospitalization was persistent throughout the preschool years. For example, the increased risk associated with elective C-section was 16% during age 0-3 months, 20% during months 4-6, 14% in months 7-12, 13% during ages 1-2 years, and 11% among 2- to 5-year-olds, he continued.

The increased risk of severe preschool infection was highest for upper and lower respiratory tract and gastrointestinal infections, which involve the organ systems most likely to experience direct inoculation of the maternal microbiome, he noted.

Because the investigators recognized that the study results were potentially vulnerable to confounding by indication – that is, that the reason for doing a C-section might itself confer increased risk of subsequent preschool infection-related hospitalization – they repeated their analysis in a predefined low-risk subpopulation. The results closely mirrored those in the overall study population: an 8% increased risk in the emergency C-section group and a 14% increased risk with elective C-section.

Results of this large multinational study should provide further support for ongoing research aimed at supporting the infant microbiome after delivery by C-section via vaginal microbial transfer and other methods, he observed.

Dr. Burgner reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was cosponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Danish Council for Independent Research, and nonprofit foundations.

bjancin@mdedge.com
 

According to the World Health Organization, there were about 219 million cases of malaria and an estimated 660,000 deaths in 2010. Although huge, this was a 26% decrease from the rates in 2000. Six countries in Africa account for 47% of malaria cases: Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mozambique, Nigeria, Uganda, and the United Republic of Tanzania. The second-most affected region in the world is Southeast Asia, which includes Myanmar, India, and Indonesia. In comparison, about 1,500 malaria cases and 5 deaths are reported annually in the United States, mostly from returned travelers.

Courtesy NIAID

It is extremely important for any woman that is or might be pregnant or breastfeeding to take an antimalarial drug for protection if they will be traveling in any of the above regions. Malaria during pregnancy increases the risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, including maternal anemia, prematurity, spontaneous abortion, and stillbirth.

As stated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, no antimalarial agent is 100% protective. Therefore, whatever agent is used must be combined with personal protective measures such as wearing insect repellent, long sleeves, and long pants; sleeping in a mosquito-free setting; or using an insecticide-treated bed net.

There are nine antimalarial drugs available in the United States.

Atovaquone/Proguanil Hcl (Malarone and as generic)

This agent is good for last-minute travelers because the drug is started 1-2 days before traveling to areas where malaria transmission occurs. The combination can be classified as compatible in pregnancy. No reports in breastfeeding with atovaquone or the combination have been found. Proguanil is not available in the United States as a single agent.

Chloroquine (generic)

This is the drug of choice to prevent and treat sensitive malaria species during pregnancy. The drug crosses the placenta producing fetal concentrations that are similar to those in the mother. The drug appears to be low risk for embryo-fetal harm.

It is compatible in breastfeeding.

Dapsone (generic)

This agent does not appear to represent a major risk of harm to the fetus. Although it has been used in combination with pyrimethamine (an antiparasitic) or trimethoprim (an antibiotic) to prevent malaria, the efficacy of the combination has not been confirmed.

In breastfeeding, there is one case of mild hemolytic anemia in the mother and her breastfeeding infant that may have been caused by the drug.

Hydroxychloroquine (generic)

This agent is used for the treatment of malaria, systemic erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis. For antimalarial prophylaxis, 400 mg/week appears to be low risk for embryo-fetal harm. Doses used to treat malaria have been 200-400 mg/day.

Because very low concentrations of the drug have been found in breast milk, breastfeeding is probably compatible.

Mefloquine (generic)

This agent is a quinoline-methanol agent that does not appear to cause embryo-fetal harm based on a large number of pregnancy exposures.

There are no reports of its use while breastfeeding.

Primaquine (generic)

This agent is best avoided in pregnancy. There is no human pregnancy data, but it may cause hemolytic anemia in patients with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PD). Because the fetus is relatively G6PD deficient, it is best avoided in pregnancy regardless of the mother’s status.

There are no reports describing the use of the drug during lactation. Both the mother and baby should be tested for G6PD deficiency before the drug is used during breastfeeding.

Pyrimethamine (generic)

This agent has been used for the treatment or prophylaxis of malaria. Most studies have found this agent to be relatively safe and effective.

It is excreted into breast milk and has been effective in eliminating malaria parasites from breastfeeding infants.

Quinidine (generic)

Reports linking the use of this agent with congenital defects have not been found. Although the drug has data on its use as an antiarrhythmic, its published use to treat malaria is limited.

The drug is excreted into breast milk, but there are no reports of its during breastfeeding.

Quinine (generic)

This agent has a large amount of human pregnancy data (more than 1,000 exposures) that found no increased risk of birth defects. The drug has been replaced by newer agents but still may be used for chloroquine-resistant malaria.

The drug appears to be compatible during breastfeeding.

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

According to the World Health Organization, there were about 219 million cases of malaria and an estimated 660,000 deaths in 2010. Although huge, this was a 26% decrease from the rates in 2000. Six countries in Africa account for 47% of malaria cases: Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mozambique, Nigeria, Uganda, and the United Republic of Tanzania. The second-most affected region in the world is Southeast Asia, which includes Myanmar, India, and Indonesia. In comparison, about 1,500 malaria cases and 5 deaths are reported annually in the United States, mostly from returned travelers.

Courtesy NIAID

It is extremely important for any woman that is or might be pregnant or breastfeeding to take an antimalarial drug for protection if they will be traveling in any of the above regions. Malaria during pregnancy increases the risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, including maternal anemia, prematurity, spontaneous abortion, and stillbirth.

As stated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, no antimalarial agent is 100% protective. Therefore, whatever agent is used must be combined with personal protective measures such as wearing insect repellent, long sleeves, and long pants; sleeping in a mosquito-free setting; or using an insecticide-treated bed net.

There are nine antimalarial drugs available in the United States.

Atovaquone/Proguanil Hcl (Malarone and as generic)

This agent is good for last-minute travelers because the drug is started 1-2 days before traveling to areas where malaria transmission occurs. The combination can be classified as compatible in pregnancy. No reports in breastfeeding with atovaquone or the combination have been found. Proguanil is not available in the United States as a single agent.

Chloroquine (generic)

This is the drug of choice to prevent and treat sensitive malaria species during pregnancy. The drug crosses the placenta producing fetal concentrations that are similar to those in the mother. The drug appears to be low risk for embryo-fetal harm.

It is compatible in breastfeeding.

Dapsone (generic)

This agent does not appear to represent a major risk of harm to the fetus. Although it has been used in combination with pyrimethamine (an antiparasitic) or trimethoprim (an antibiotic) to prevent malaria, the efficacy of the combination has not been confirmed.

In breastfeeding, there is one case of mild hemolytic anemia in the mother and her breastfeeding infant that may have been caused by the drug.

Hydroxychloroquine (generic)

This agent is used for the treatment of malaria, systemic erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis. For antimalarial prophylaxis, 400 mg/week appears to be low risk for embryo-fetal harm. Doses used to treat malaria have been 200-400 mg/day.

Because very low concentrations of the drug have been found in breast milk, breastfeeding is probably compatible.

Mefloquine (generic)

This agent is a quinoline-methanol agent that does not appear to cause embryo-fetal harm based on a large number of pregnancy exposures.

There are no reports of its use while breastfeeding.

Primaquine (generic)

This agent is best avoided in pregnancy. There is no human pregnancy data, but it may cause hemolytic anemia in patients with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PD). Because the fetus is relatively G6PD deficient, it is best avoided in pregnancy regardless of the mother’s status.

There are no reports describing the use of the drug during lactation. Both the mother and baby should be tested for G6PD deficiency before the drug is used during breastfeeding.

Pyrimethamine (generic)

This agent has been used for the treatment or prophylaxis of malaria. Most studies have found this agent to be relatively safe and effective.

It is excreted into breast milk and has been effective in eliminating malaria parasites from breastfeeding infants.

Quinidine (generic)

Reports linking the use of this agent with congenital defects have not been found. Although the drug has data on its use as an antiarrhythmic, its published use to treat malaria is limited.

The drug is excreted into breast milk, but there are no reports of its during breastfeeding.

Quinine (generic)

This agent has a large amount of human pregnancy data (more than 1,000 exposures) that found no increased risk of birth defects. The drug has been replaced by newer agents but still may be used for chloroquine-resistant malaria.

The drug appears to be compatible during breastfeeding.

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

According to the World Health Organization, there were about 219 million cases of malaria and an estimated 660,000 deaths in 2010. Although huge, this was a 26% decrease from the rates in 2000. Six countries in Africa account for 47% of malaria cases: Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mozambique, Nigeria, Uganda, and the United Republic of Tanzania. The second-most affected region in the world is Southeast Asia, which includes Myanmar, India, and Indonesia. In comparison, about 1,500 malaria cases and 5 deaths are reported annually in the United States, mostly from returned travelers.

Courtesy NIAID

It is extremely important for any woman that is or might be pregnant or breastfeeding to take an antimalarial drug for protection if they will be traveling in any of the above regions. Malaria during pregnancy increases the risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, including maternal anemia, prematurity, spontaneous abortion, and stillbirth.

As stated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, no antimalarial agent is 100% protective. Therefore, whatever agent is used must be combined with personal protective measures such as wearing insect repellent, long sleeves, and long pants; sleeping in a mosquito-free setting; or using an insecticide-treated bed net.

There are nine antimalarial drugs available in the United States.

Atovaquone/Proguanil Hcl (Malarone and as generic)

This agent is good for last-minute travelers because the drug is started 1-2 days before traveling to areas where malaria transmission occurs. The combination can be classified as compatible in pregnancy. No reports in breastfeeding with atovaquone or the combination have been found. Proguanil is not available in the United States as a single agent.

Chloroquine (generic)

This is the drug of choice to prevent and treat sensitive malaria species during pregnancy. The drug crosses the placenta producing fetal concentrations that are similar to those in the mother. The drug appears to be low risk for embryo-fetal harm.

It is compatible in breastfeeding.

Dapsone (generic)

This agent does not appear to represent a major risk of harm to the fetus. Although it has been used in combination with pyrimethamine (an antiparasitic) or trimethoprim (an antibiotic) to prevent malaria, the efficacy of the combination has not been confirmed.

In breastfeeding, there is one case of mild hemolytic anemia in the mother and her breastfeeding infant that may have been caused by the drug.

Hydroxychloroquine (generic)

This agent is used for the treatment of malaria, systemic erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis. For antimalarial prophylaxis, 400 mg/week appears to be low risk for embryo-fetal harm. Doses used to treat malaria have been 200-400 mg/day.

Because very low concentrations of the drug have been found in breast milk, breastfeeding is probably compatible.

Mefloquine (generic)

This agent is a quinoline-methanol agent that does not appear to cause embryo-fetal harm based on a large number of pregnancy exposures.

There are no reports of its use while breastfeeding.

Primaquine (generic)

This agent is best avoided in pregnancy. There is no human pregnancy data, but it may cause hemolytic anemia in patients with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PD). Because the fetus is relatively G6PD deficient, it is best avoided in pregnancy regardless of the mother’s status.

There are no reports describing the use of the drug during lactation. Both the mother and baby should be tested for G6PD deficiency before the drug is used during breastfeeding.

Pyrimethamine (generic)

This agent has been used for the treatment or prophylaxis of malaria. Most studies have found this agent to be relatively safe and effective.

It is excreted into breast milk and has been effective in eliminating malaria parasites from breastfeeding infants.

Quinidine (generic)

Reports linking the use of this agent with congenital defects have not been found. Although the drug has data on its use as an antiarrhythmic, its published use to treat malaria is limited.

The drug is excreted into breast milk, but there are no reports of its during breastfeeding.

Quinine (generic)

This agent has a large amount of human pregnancy data (more than 1,000 exposures) that found no increased risk of birth defects. The drug has been replaced by newer agents but still may be used for chloroquine-resistant malaria.

The drug appears to be compatible during breastfeeding.

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at obnews@mdedge.com.

Louisiana has joined a handful of other states in passing a so-called fetal heartbeat bill that would ban abortions as early as 6 weeks, about the time a heartbeat is usually detectable.

The legislation, which does not include an exception for rape or incest cases, passed by a 79-23 vote on May 29 in the Louisiana House. The bill does allow exceptions if the woman’s life is in danger, if the pregnancy poses risk of serious impairment to a woman’s body, of if the pregnancy is deemed medically futile. Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards said he plans to sign the measure when it hits his desk.

“In 2015, I ran for governor as a pro-life candidate after serving as a pro-life legislator for 8 years,” Gov. Edwards said in a May 29 statement. “As governor, I have been true to my word and my beliefs on this issue. As I prepare to sign this bill, I call on the overwhelming bipartisan majority of legislators who voted for it to join me in continuing to build a better Louisiana that cares for the least among us and provides more opportunity for everyone.”

Six other states have enacted similar abortion bans: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio. While most of the laws bar abortions after a heartbeat is detected, Alabama’s measure prohibits abortion at every pregnancy stage and penalizes physicians with a Class A felony for performing an abortion and a Class C felony for attempting to perform an abortion. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed the bill into law on May 15.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against the bans, including a May 24 legal challenge against Alabama’s law by Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and a May 15 legal challenge against Ohio’s law by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio.

The U.S. Supreme Court on May 28 upheld part of an Indiana law that requires burial or cremation of fetal remains after an abortion, but the justices declined to address the measure’s prohibition on abortions sought because of race, sex, or disability of the fetus.

Court analysts say it’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court takes up one of the abortion ban cases, most likely the legal challenge against Alabama’s law. Abortion critics have been encouraged by the Supreme Court appointment of right-leaning Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and hope the Alabama measure will drive the Supreme Court to reconsider its central holding in Roe v. Wade, court watchers said.

agallegos@mdedge.com

Louisiana has joined a handful of other states in passing a so-called fetal heartbeat bill that would ban abortions as early as 6 weeks, about the time a heartbeat is usually detectable.

The legislation, which does not include an exception for rape or incest cases, passed by a 79-23 vote on May 29 in the Louisiana House. The bill does allow exceptions if the woman’s life is in danger, if the pregnancy poses risk of serious impairment to a woman’s body, of if the pregnancy is deemed medically futile. Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards said he plans to sign the measure when it hits his desk.

“In 2015, I ran for governor as a pro-life candidate after serving as a pro-life legislator for 8 years,” Gov. Edwards said in a May 29 statement. “As governor, I have been true to my word and my beliefs on this issue. As I prepare to sign this bill, I call on the overwhelming bipartisan majority of legislators who voted for it to join me in continuing to build a better Louisiana that cares for the least among us and provides more opportunity for everyone.”

Six other states have enacted similar abortion bans: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio. While most of the laws bar abortions after a heartbeat is detected, Alabama’s measure prohibits abortion at every pregnancy stage and penalizes physicians with a Class A felony for performing an abortion and a Class C felony for attempting to perform an abortion. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed the bill into law on May 15.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against the bans, including a May 24 legal challenge against Alabama’s law by Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and a May 15 legal challenge against Ohio’s law by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio.

The U.S. Supreme Court on May 28 upheld part of an Indiana law that requires burial or cremation of fetal remains after an abortion, but the justices declined to address the measure’s prohibition on abortions sought because of race, sex, or disability of the fetus.

Court analysts say it’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court takes up one of the abortion ban cases, most likely the legal challenge against Alabama’s law. Abortion critics have been encouraged by the Supreme Court appointment of right-leaning Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and hope the Alabama measure will drive the Supreme Court to reconsider its central holding in Roe v. Wade, court watchers said.

agallegos@mdedge.com

Louisiana has joined a handful of other states in passing a so-called fetal heartbeat bill that would ban abortions as early as 6 weeks, about the time a heartbeat is usually detectable.

The legislation, which does not include an exception for rape or incest cases, passed by a 79-23 vote on May 29 in the Louisiana House. The bill does allow exceptions if the woman’s life is in danger, if the pregnancy poses risk of serious impairment to a woman’s body, of if the pregnancy is deemed medically futile. Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards said he plans to sign the measure when it hits his desk.

“In 2015, I ran for governor as a pro-life candidate after serving as a pro-life legislator for 8 years,” Gov. Edwards said in a May 29 statement. “As governor, I have been true to my word and my beliefs on this issue. As I prepare to sign this bill, I call on the overwhelming bipartisan majority of legislators who voted for it to join me in continuing to build a better Louisiana that cares for the least among us and provides more opportunity for everyone.”

Six other states have enacted similar abortion bans: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio. While most of the laws bar abortions after a heartbeat is detected, Alabama’s measure prohibits abortion at every pregnancy stage and penalizes physicians with a Class A felony for performing an abortion and a Class C felony for attempting to perform an abortion. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed the bill into law on May 15.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against the bans, including a May 24 legal challenge against Alabama’s law by Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and a May 15 legal challenge against Ohio’s law by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio.

The U.S. Supreme Court on May 28 upheld part of an Indiana law that requires burial or cremation of fetal remains after an abortion, but the justices declined to address the measure’s prohibition on abortions sought because of race, sex, or disability of the fetus.

Court analysts say it’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court takes up one of the abortion ban cases, most likely the legal challenge against Alabama’s law. Abortion critics have been encouraged by the Supreme Court appointment of right-leaning Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and hope the Alabama measure will drive the Supreme Court to reconsider its central holding in Roe v. Wade, court watchers said.

agallegos@mdedge.com

All pregnant women should be screened for preterm preeclampsia (PE) in the first trimester using a combined test with maternal risk factors and biomarkers as a one-step procedure, according to new recommendations from The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO).

FIGO “encourages all countries and its member associations to adopt and promote strategies to ensure [universal screening],” Liona C. Poon, MD, of Prince of Wales Hospital, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, and colleagues wrote in a guide published in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics.

“The best combined test is one that includes maternal risk factors, measurements of mean arterial pressure (MAP), serum placental growth factor (PLGF), and uterine artery pulsatility index (UTPI),” the authors said, noting that the baseline screening test plus a combination of maternal risk factors with MAP is an alternative when PLGF and/or UTPI can’t be measured.

The FIGO recommendations are the culmination of an initiative on PE, which involved a group of international experts convened to discuss and evaluate current knowledge on PE and to “develop a document to frame the issues and suggest key actions to address the health burden posed by PE.” Among the group’s objectives are raising awareness of the links between PE and poor outcomes, and demanding a “clearly defined global health agenda” to address the issue because preeclampsia affects 2%-5% of all pregnant women and is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality.

The recommendations represent a consensus document that provides guidance for the first trimester screening and prevention of preterm PE.

“Based on high‐quality evidence, the document outlines current global standards for the first‐trimester screening and prevention of preterm PE, which is in line with FIGO good clinical practice advice on first trimester screening and prevention of preeclampsia in singleton pregnancy,” the authors said, explaining that “[it] provides both the best and the most pragmatic recommendations according to the level of acceptability, feasibility, and ease of implementation that have the potential to produce the most significant impact in different resource settings” (Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2019;145[Suppl. 1]:1-33).


Specific suggestions are made based on region and resources, and research priorities are outlined to “bridge the current knowledge and evidence gap.”

In addition to universal first trimester screening for PE, the guide stresses a need for improved public health focus, and contingent screening approaches in areas with limited resources (including routine screening for preterm PE by maternal factors and MAP in most cases, with PLGF and UTPI measurement reserved for higher-risk women). It also recommends that women at high risk should receive prophylactic measures such as aspirin therapy beginning at 11–14⁺⁶ weeks of gestation at a dose of about 150 mg to be taken every night until 36 weeks of gestation, when delivery occurs, or when PE is diagnosed.

Mary E. D’Alton, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and the Willard C. Rappleye Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology at Columbia University, New York, was asked to comment on Dr. Sibai’s concerns about the guidelines. “I would simply say that ACOG and SMFM are the organizations in the United States [that] provide educational guidelines about practice in the United States.” Dr. D’Alton assisted Dr. Poon and her associates on the guidelines as an expert on preeclampsia.

Dr. Poon, given a chance to comment on the concern that the FIGO guidelines diverged from those of ACOG and SMFM, responded in an interview, “FIGO, being the global voice for women’s health, likes to ensure that our recommendations are resource appropriate. The objective of these guidelines is to provide a best practice approach, and also offers other pragmatic options for lower resource settings to ensure that preeclampsia testing can be implemented globally. We urge the broader membership of FIGO to adapt these guidelines to their local contexts.”*

She also emphasized that “PerkinElmer’s sponsorship was an unrestricted grant. The company had no involvement in writing the guideline.”*


This work was funded by an unrestricted grant from PerkinElmer, which markets an assay used for first trimester preeclampsia screening. Dr. Poon and her associates reported having no conflicts of interest.

sworcester@mdedge.com

*This article was updated 5/31/2019.

All pregnant women should be screened for preterm preeclampsia (PE) in the first trimester using a combined test with maternal risk factors and biomarkers as a one-step procedure, according to new recommendations from The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO).

FIGO “encourages all countries and its member associations to adopt and promote strategies to ensure [universal screening],” Liona C. Poon, MD, of Prince of Wales Hospital, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, and colleagues wrote in a guide published in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics.

“The best combined test is one that includes maternal risk factors, measurements of mean arterial pressure (MAP), serum placental growth factor (PLGF), and uterine artery pulsatility index (UTPI),” the authors said, noting that the baseline screening test plus a combination of maternal risk factors with MAP is an alternative when PLGF and/or UTPI can’t be measured.

The FIGO recommendations are the culmination of an initiative on PE, which involved a group of international experts convened to discuss and evaluate current knowledge on PE and to “develop a document to frame the issues and suggest key actions to address the health burden posed by PE.” Among the group’s objectives are raising awareness of the links between PE and poor outcomes, and demanding a “clearly defined global health agenda” to address the issue because preeclampsia affects 2%-5% of all pregnant women and is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality.

The recommendations represent a consensus document that provides guidance for the first trimester screening and prevention of preterm PE.

“Based on high‐quality evidence, the document outlines current global standards for the first‐trimester screening and prevention of preterm PE, which is in line with FIGO good clinical practice advice on first trimester screening and prevention of preeclampsia in singleton pregnancy,” the authors said, explaining that “[it] provides both the best and the most pragmatic recommendations according to the level of acceptability, feasibility, and ease of implementation that have the potential to produce the most significant impact in different resource settings” (Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2019;145[Suppl. 1]:1-33).


Specific suggestions are made based on region and resources, and research priorities are outlined to “bridge the current knowledge and evidence gap.”

In addition to universal first trimester screening for PE, the guide stresses a need for improved public health focus, and contingent screening approaches in areas with limited resources (including routine screening for preterm PE by maternal factors and MAP in most cases, with PLGF and UTPI measurement reserved for higher-risk women). It also recommends that women at high risk should receive prophylactic measures such as aspirin therapy beginning at 11–14⁺⁶ weeks of gestation at a dose of about 150 mg to be taken every night until 36 weeks of gestation, when delivery occurs, or when PE is diagnosed.

Mary E. D’Alton, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and the Willard C. Rappleye Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology at Columbia University, New York, was asked to comment on Dr. Sibai’s concerns about the guidelines. “I would simply say that ACOG and SMFM are the organizations in the United States [that] provide educational guidelines about practice in the United States.” Dr. D’Alton assisted Dr. Poon and her associates on the guidelines as an expert on preeclampsia.

Dr. Poon, given a chance to comment on the concern that the FIGO guidelines diverged from those of ACOG and SMFM, responded in an interview, “FIGO, being the global voice for women’s health, likes to ensure that our recommendations are resource appropriate. The objective of these guidelines is to provide a best practice approach, and also offers other pragmatic options for lower resource settings to ensure that preeclampsia testing can be implemented globally. We urge the broader membership of FIGO to adapt these guidelines to their local contexts.”*

She also emphasized that “PerkinElmer’s sponsorship was an unrestricted grant. The company had no involvement in writing the guideline.”*


This work was funded by an unrestricted grant from PerkinElmer, which markets an assay used for first trimester preeclampsia screening. Dr. Poon and her associates reported having no conflicts of interest.

sworcester@mdedge.com

*This article was updated 5/31/2019.

All pregnant women should be screened for preterm preeclampsia (PE) in the first trimester using a combined test with maternal risk factors and biomarkers as a one-step procedure, according to new recommendations from The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO).

FIGO “encourages all countries and its member associations to adopt and promote strategies to ensure [universal screening],” Liona C. Poon, MD, of Prince of Wales Hospital, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, and colleagues wrote in a guide published in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics.

“The best combined test is one that includes maternal risk factors, measurements of mean arterial pressure (MAP), serum placental growth factor (PLGF), and uterine artery pulsatility index (UTPI),” the authors said, noting that the baseline screening test plus a combination of maternal risk factors with MAP is an alternative when PLGF and/or UTPI can’t be measured.

The FIGO recommendations are the culmination of an initiative on PE, which involved a group of international experts convened to discuss and evaluate current knowledge on PE and to “develop a document to frame the issues and suggest key actions to address the health burden posed by PE.” Among the group’s objectives are raising awareness of the links between PE and poor outcomes, and demanding a “clearly defined global health agenda” to address the issue because preeclampsia affects 2%-5% of all pregnant women and is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality.

The recommendations represent a consensus document that provides guidance for the first trimester screening and prevention of preterm PE.

“Based on high‐quality evidence, the document outlines current global standards for the first‐trimester screening and prevention of preterm PE, which is in line with FIGO good clinical practice advice on first trimester screening and prevention of preeclampsia in singleton pregnancy,” the authors said, explaining that “[it] provides both the best and the most pragmatic recommendations according to the level of acceptability, feasibility, and ease of implementation that have the potential to produce the most significant impact in different resource settings” (Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2019;145[Suppl. 1]:1-33).


Specific suggestions are made based on region and resources, and research priorities are outlined to “bridge the current knowledge and evidence gap.”

In addition to universal first trimester screening for PE, the guide stresses a need for improved public health focus, and contingent screening approaches in areas with limited resources (including routine screening for preterm PE by maternal factors and MAP in most cases, with PLGF and UTPI measurement reserved for higher-risk women). It also recommends that women at high risk should receive prophylactic measures such as aspirin therapy beginning at 11–14⁺⁶ weeks of gestation at a dose of about 150 mg to be taken every night until 36 weeks of gestation, when delivery occurs, or when PE is diagnosed.

Mary E. D’Alton, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who is chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology and the Willard C. Rappleye Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology at Columbia University, New York, was asked to comment on Dr. Sibai’s concerns about the guidelines. “I would simply say that ACOG and SMFM are the organizations in the United States [that] provide educational guidelines about practice in the United States.” Dr. D’Alton assisted Dr. Poon and her associates on the guidelines as an expert on preeclampsia.

Dr. Poon, given a chance to comment on the concern that the FIGO guidelines diverged from those of ACOG and SMFM, responded in an interview, “FIGO, being the global voice for women’s health, likes to ensure that our recommendations are resource appropriate. The objective of these guidelines is to provide a best practice approach, and also offers other pragmatic options for lower resource settings to ensure that preeclampsia testing can be implemented globally. We urge the broader membership of FIGO to adapt these guidelines to their local contexts.”*

She also emphasized that “PerkinElmer’s sponsorship was an unrestricted grant. The company had no involvement in writing the guideline.”*


This work was funded by an unrestricted grant from PerkinElmer, which markets an assay used for first trimester preeclampsia screening. Dr. Poon and her associates reported having no conflicts of interest.

sworcester@mdedge.com

*This article was updated 5/31/2019.

The causes of death differ throughout pregnancy and postpartum. Overall, heart disease and stroke cause > 1 in 3 deaths. At delivery, most deaths are due to obstetric emergencies, such as severe bleeding and amniotic fluid embolism. In the week after delivery, severe bleeding, high blood pressure, and infection are most common.  But one-third of the deaths happen 1 week to 1 year after delivery, most often caused by cardiomyopathy.

The findings also confirm racial disparities, the CDC says. Black and Native American women were about 3 times as likely as white women to die of a pregnancy-related cause.

The researchers analyzed 2011-2015 national data on pregnancy mortality and 2013-2017 data from 13 state maternal mortality review committees. Their analysis revealed that most pregnancy-related deaths were preventable regardless of race or ethnicity. Each death represents a “web of missed opportunities,” the CDC says. The mortality review committees determined that each death was associated with several contributing factors, including lack of access to appropriate care, missed or delayed diagnoses, and lack of knowledge among patients and providers about warning signs.

The CDC offers advice on how to help keep patients safe during and after pregnancy. For example:

• Help patients manage their chronic conditions;
• Teach patients about warning signs; and
• Use tools to flag warning signs early so women can receive timely treatment

Hospitals also can standardize patient care, the CDC advises, including delivering high-risk women at hospitals with specialized providers and equipment. They can train nonobstetric providers to consider the patient’s recent pregnancy history. Importantly, health care practitioners should continue to provide high-quality care for mothers up to at least 1 year after birth.

The causes of death differ throughout pregnancy and postpartum. Overall, heart disease and stroke cause > 1 in 3 deaths. At delivery, most deaths are due to obstetric emergencies, such as severe bleeding and amniotic fluid embolism. In the week after delivery, severe bleeding, high blood pressure, and infection are most common.  But one-third of the deaths happen 1 week to 1 year after delivery, most often caused by cardiomyopathy.

The findings also confirm racial disparities, the CDC says. Black and Native American women were about 3 times as likely as white women to die of a pregnancy-related cause.

The researchers analyzed 2011-2015 national data on pregnancy mortality and 2013-2017 data from 13 state maternal mortality review committees. Their analysis revealed that most pregnancy-related deaths were preventable regardless of race or ethnicity. Each death represents a “web of missed opportunities,” the CDC says. The mortality review committees determined that each death was associated with several contributing factors, including lack of access to appropriate care, missed or delayed diagnoses, and lack of knowledge among patients and providers about warning signs.

The CDC offers advice on how to help keep patients safe during and after pregnancy. For example:

• Help patients manage their chronic conditions;
• Teach patients about warning signs; and
• Use tools to flag warning signs early so women can receive timely treatment

Hospitals also can standardize patient care, the CDC advises, including delivering high-risk women at hospitals with specialized providers and equipment. They can train nonobstetric providers to consider the patient’s recent pregnancy history. Importantly, health care practitioners should continue to provide high-quality care for mothers up to at least 1 year after birth.

The causes of death differ throughout pregnancy and postpartum. Overall, heart disease and stroke cause > 1 in 3 deaths. At delivery, most deaths are due to obstetric emergencies, such as severe bleeding and amniotic fluid embolism. In the week after delivery, severe bleeding, high blood pressure, and infection are most common.  But one-third of the deaths happen 1 week to 1 year after delivery, most often caused by cardiomyopathy.

The findings also confirm racial disparities, the CDC says. Black and Native American women were about 3 times as likely as white women to die of a pregnancy-related cause.

The researchers analyzed 2011-2015 national data on pregnancy mortality and 2013-2017 data from 13 state maternal mortality review committees. Their analysis revealed that most pregnancy-related deaths were preventable regardless of race or ethnicity. Each death represents a “web of missed opportunities,” the CDC says. The mortality review committees determined that each death was associated with several contributing factors, including lack of access to appropriate care, missed or delayed diagnoses, and lack of knowledge among patients and providers about warning signs.

The CDC offers advice on how to help keep patients safe during and after pregnancy. For example:

• Help patients manage their chronic conditions;
• Teach patients about warning signs; and
• Use tools to flag warning signs early so women can receive timely treatment

Hospitals also can standardize patient care, the CDC advises, including delivering high-risk women at hospitals with specialized providers and equipment. They can train nonobstetric providers to consider the patient’s recent pregnancy history. Importantly, health care practitioners should continue to provide high-quality care for mothers up to at least 1 year after birth.

ST. LOUIS – As the last abortion clinic in Missouri warned that it will have to stop providing the procedure as soon as May 31, abortion providers in surrounding states said they are anticipating an uptick of even more Missouri patients.

At Hope Clinic in Granite City, Ill., just 10 minutes from downtown St. Louis, Deputy Director Alison Dreith said on May 28 that her clinic was preparing for more patients as news about Missouri spread.

“We’re really scrambling today about the need for increased staff and how fast can we hire and train,” Dreith said.

And at a Trust Women clinic in Wichita, Kan., that already has to fly in doctors, the staff didn’t know what it would mean for their overloaded patient schedule.

“God forbid we see that people can’t get services in Missouri,” said Julie Burkhart, Trust Women founder and CEO. “What is that going to mean on our limited physician days?”

If St. Louis’ Planned Parenthood clinic is unable to offer abortions, the group said, Missouri would be the only state in the country to not have an operating abortion clinic. Five other states – Kentucky, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia – reportedly have only one abortion clinic. And 90% of U.S. counties didn’t have an abortion clinic as of 2014, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research and advocacy group.

For some, this echoes back to the days before abortion was legalized nationwide in 1973 with the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, when patients who could afford to travel would go to more liberal states like California or New York where abortion was legal.

But providers in Kansas and Illinois say this influx from Missouri isn’t new. About half of their clients already come from the Show Me State. To the south, in neighboring Arkansas, where a 72-hour waiting period will go into effect in July, the vast majority of its patients still live within the state.

Over the past 10 years, four Missouri abortion clinics have closed because of increased regulations, including a mandatory 72-hour waiting period after receiving counseling on abortion, thus requiring two trips to a facility; requirements that physicians have hospital admitting privileges within 15 minutes of their clinics; and a rule requiring two-parent notification for minors and one-parent notarized consent. All those limits left one clinic in downtown St. Louis to serve the whole state.

Now Planned Parenthood, which operates that final abortion clinic, said on May 28 that it will be forced to end its abortion services altogether by May 31 if the state suspends its license. The closure is not related to new anti-abortion laws that Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, a Republican, signed on May 24 to ban most abortions after 8 weeks of pregnancy. The new laws don’t take effect until August.

Already the number of patients in Missouri seeking an abortion at the clinic from April 2018 until this April had dropped by 50% compared with the same period the previous year. Planned Parenthood spokesman Jesse Lawder attributes two-thirds of the decrease to the clinic’s refusal to do pelvic exams for abortions performed through medication – recently required by the state – thus forcing all such abortions to be performed out of state.

For Dreith, while she expects the Missouri numbers to continue to grow at her Illinois clinic across the Mississippi River, it’s not the only state sending patients her way.

“Patients were literally coming to us from the last remaining clinics in Kentucky ... so that they wouldn’t get past 24 weeks,” Dreith said. “We don’t want these patients in surrounding states traveling [to] New York [or] California like they once had to.”

That’s how it was prior to the Roe v. Wade ruling, according to Mary Ziegler, a professor at Florida State University College of Law who is writing her third book on the history of the legal battle around abortion access. She anticipates the pattern of privilege will repeat itself.

“You would still expect women with resources to be able to travel as far as they needed,” she said. “And you would expect women without resources to not be able to travel. ... The more the court retreats from protecting abortion rights, the more stark those differences will become.”

For Dreith, the historical comparison to the pre-Roe era rings true, albeit with improved medical practices.

There are safer, easier, and more effective ways to perform abortions now than the “horror stories that we saw pre-Roe,” said Dreith. “But I think the travel will be one of the huge throwbacks and the scariest part will be the criminalization.”

States such as Missouri could feel pressure to start arresting women who perform their own abortions with pills at home or travel out of state, Ziegler said. But, she said, “punishing women isn’t something that’s thought to be very popular.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

ST. LOUIS – As the last abortion clinic in Missouri warned that it will have to stop providing the procedure as soon as May 31, abortion providers in surrounding states said they are anticipating an uptick of even more Missouri patients.

At Hope Clinic in Granite City, Ill., just 10 minutes from downtown St. Louis, Deputy Director Alison Dreith said on May 28 that her clinic was preparing for more patients as news about Missouri spread.

“We’re really scrambling today about the need for increased staff and how fast can we hire and train,” Dreith said.

And at a Trust Women clinic in Wichita, Kan., that already has to fly in doctors, the staff didn’t know what it would mean for their overloaded patient schedule.

“God forbid we see that people can’t get services in Missouri,” said Julie Burkhart, Trust Women founder and CEO. “What is that going to mean on our limited physician days?”

If St. Louis’ Planned Parenthood clinic is unable to offer abortions, the group said, Missouri would be the only state in the country to not have an operating abortion clinic. Five other states – Kentucky, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia – reportedly have only one abortion clinic. And 90% of U.S. counties didn’t have an abortion clinic as of 2014, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research and advocacy group.

For some, this echoes back to the days before abortion was legalized nationwide in 1973 with the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, when patients who could afford to travel would go to more liberal states like California or New York where abortion was legal.

But providers in Kansas and Illinois say this influx from Missouri isn’t new. About half of their clients already come from the Show Me State. To the south, in neighboring Arkansas, where a 72-hour waiting period will go into effect in July, the vast majority of its patients still live within the state.

Over the past 10 years, four Missouri abortion clinics have closed because of increased regulations, including a mandatory 72-hour waiting period after receiving counseling on abortion, thus requiring two trips to a facility; requirements that physicians have hospital admitting privileges within 15 minutes of their clinics; and a rule requiring two-parent notification for minors and one-parent notarized consent. All those limits left one clinic in downtown St. Louis to serve the whole state.

Now Planned Parenthood, which operates that final abortion clinic, said on May 28 that it will be forced to end its abortion services altogether by May 31 if the state suspends its license. The closure is not related to new anti-abortion laws that Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, a Republican, signed on May 24 to ban most abortions after 8 weeks of pregnancy. The new laws don’t take effect until August.

Already the number of patients in Missouri seeking an abortion at the clinic from April 2018 until this April had dropped by 50% compared with the same period the previous year. Planned Parenthood spokesman Jesse Lawder attributes two-thirds of the decrease to the clinic’s refusal to do pelvic exams for abortions performed through medication – recently required by the state – thus forcing all such abortions to be performed out of state.

For Dreith, while she expects the Missouri numbers to continue to grow at her Illinois clinic across the Mississippi River, it’s not the only state sending patients her way.

“Patients were literally coming to us from the last remaining clinics in Kentucky ... so that they wouldn’t get past 24 weeks,” Dreith said. “We don’t want these patients in surrounding states traveling [to] New York [or] California like they once had to.”

That’s how it was prior to the Roe v. Wade ruling, according to Mary Ziegler, a professor at Florida State University College of Law who is writing her third book on the history of the legal battle around abortion access. She anticipates the pattern of privilege will repeat itself.

“You would still expect women with resources to be able to travel as far as they needed,” she said. “And you would expect women without resources to not be able to travel. ... The more the court retreats from protecting abortion rights, the more stark those differences will become.”

For Dreith, the historical comparison to the pre-Roe era rings true, albeit with improved medical practices.

There are safer, easier, and more effective ways to perform abortions now than the “horror stories that we saw pre-Roe,” said Dreith. “But I think the travel will be one of the huge throwbacks and the scariest part will be the criminalization.”

States such as Missouri could feel pressure to start arresting women who perform their own abortions with pills at home or travel out of state, Ziegler said. But, she said, “punishing women isn’t something that’s thought to be very popular.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

ST. LOUIS – As the last abortion clinic in Missouri warned that it will have to stop providing the procedure as soon as May 31, abortion providers in surrounding states said they are anticipating an uptick of even more Missouri patients.

At Hope Clinic in Granite City, Ill., just 10 minutes from downtown St. Louis, Deputy Director Alison Dreith said on May 28 that her clinic was preparing for more patients as news about Missouri spread.

“We’re really scrambling today about the need for increased staff and how fast can we hire and train,” Dreith said.

And at a Trust Women clinic in Wichita, Kan., that already has to fly in doctors, the staff didn’t know what it would mean for their overloaded patient schedule.

“God forbid we see that people can’t get services in Missouri,” said Julie Burkhart, Trust Women founder and CEO. “What is that going to mean on our limited physician days?”

If St. Louis’ Planned Parenthood clinic is unable to offer abortions, the group said, Missouri would be the only state in the country to not have an operating abortion clinic. Five other states – Kentucky, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia – reportedly have only one abortion clinic. And 90% of U.S. counties didn’t have an abortion clinic as of 2014, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research and advocacy group.

For some, this echoes back to the days before abortion was legalized nationwide in 1973 with the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, when patients who could afford to travel would go to more liberal states like California or New York where abortion was legal.

But providers in Kansas and Illinois say this influx from Missouri isn’t new. About half of their clients already come from the Show Me State. To the south, in neighboring Arkansas, where a 72-hour waiting period will go into effect in July, the vast majority of its patients still live within the state.

Over the past 10 years, four Missouri abortion clinics have closed because of increased regulations, including a mandatory 72-hour waiting period after receiving counseling on abortion, thus requiring two trips to a facility; requirements that physicians have hospital admitting privileges within 15 minutes of their clinics; and a rule requiring two-parent notification for minors and one-parent notarized consent. All those limits left one clinic in downtown St. Louis to serve the whole state.

Now Planned Parenthood, which operates that final abortion clinic, said on May 28 that it will be forced to end its abortion services altogether by May 31 if the state suspends its license. The closure is not related to new anti-abortion laws that Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, a Republican, signed on May 24 to ban most abortions after 8 weeks of pregnancy. The new laws don’t take effect until August.

Already the number of patients in Missouri seeking an abortion at the clinic from April 2018 until this April had dropped by 50% compared with the same period the previous year. Planned Parenthood spokesman Jesse Lawder attributes two-thirds of the decrease to the clinic’s refusal to do pelvic exams for abortions performed through medication – recently required by the state – thus forcing all such abortions to be performed out of state.

For Dreith, while she expects the Missouri numbers to continue to grow at her Illinois clinic across the Mississippi River, it’s not the only state sending patients her way.

“Patients were literally coming to us from the last remaining clinics in Kentucky ... so that they wouldn’t get past 24 weeks,” Dreith said. “We don’t want these patients in surrounding states traveling [to] New York [or] California like they once had to.”

That’s how it was prior to the Roe v. Wade ruling, according to Mary Ziegler, a professor at Florida State University College of Law who is writing her third book on the history of the legal battle around abortion access. She anticipates the pattern of privilege will repeat itself.

“You would still expect women with resources to be able to travel as far as they needed,” she said. “And you would expect women without resources to not be able to travel. ... The more the court retreats from protecting abortion rights, the more stark those differences will become.”

For Dreith, the historical comparison to the pre-Roe era rings true, albeit with improved medical practices.

There are safer, easier, and more effective ways to perform abortions now than the “horror stories that we saw pre-Roe,” said Dreith. “But I think the travel will be one of the huge throwbacks and the scariest part will be the criminalization.”

States such as Missouri could feel pressure to start arresting women who perform their own abortions with pills at home or travel out of state, Ziegler said. But, she said, “punishing women isn’t something that’s thought to be very popular.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld part of an Indiana law that requires burial or cremation of fetal remains after an abortion, but the justices declined to address the measure’s prohibition on abortions sought because of race, sex, or disability of the fetus.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

In a three-page, unsigned opinion issued May 28, justices wrote that Indiana has a legitimate interest in proper disposition of fetal remains and that the state’s burial/cremation mandate is rational. However, justices said they would not take up the second part of the law regarding abortions based on race, sex, or disability because not enough appeals courts have decided the issue. The court emphasized it was not expressing any view on the merits of the second question.

The opinion stems from an antiabortion measure signed into law by then–Indiana Governor Mike Pence (R) in 2016. According to the law, the health facility where an abortion occurred is required to dispose of fetal remains either by cremation or internment unless the woman or an associated party take possession of the remains. The measure allows the woman or associated party to choose a location of final disposition provided that the parties pay the costs for such arrangements. The second part of the law prohibits an abortion from being performed solely because of the fetus’s expected race, sex, diagnosis, or disability.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky sued over the law, arguing that the measure was unconstitutional. Indiana officials countered the disposal requirements provided fetuses dignity in death and that the law’s abortion restrictions prevented discrimination of particular fetuses in light of technological advances in genetic screening. In 2018, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit struck down the entire law. The panel wrote that well-established Supreme Court precedent allows a woman to terminate her pregnancy for any reason and that the Indiana law invaded a woman’s privacy by examining the underlying basis of her decision for an abortion.

In the Supreme Court’s May 28 filing, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote separately, each stating they would have upheld the lower court’s ban of the entire law. Justice Clarence Thomas, meanwhile, wrote a lengthy separate opinion, agreeing with the court’s decision, but expressing concern over the use of abortion as a “tool of modern-day eugenics.”

“The court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s,” Justice Thomas wrote. “Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement.”

The Supreme Court’s decision on the Indiana law comes just weeks after two other stringent state abortion measures were signed into law. On May 7, 2019, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed into law a statute that bars physicians from performing an abortion after a heartbeat is detected – usually at about 6 weeks of pregnancy. On May 15, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed a law that would ban abortion at every pregnancy stage and penalize physicians with a Class A felony for performing an abortion and charge them with a Class C felony for attempting to perform an abortion.

Analysts say the Alabama law, in particular, could land in front of the Supreme Court as a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. Abortion critics have been encouraged by the Supreme Court appointment of right-leaning Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and hope the Alabama measure will drive the Supreme Court to reconsider its central holding in Roe, court watchers said.

agallegos@mdedge.com

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld part of an Indiana law that requires burial or cremation of fetal remains after an abortion, but the justices declined to address the measure’s prohibition on abortions sought because of race, sex, or disability of the fetus.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

In a three-page, unsigned opinion issued May 28, justices wrote that Indiana has a legitimate interest in proper disposition of fetal remains and that the state’s burial/cremation mandate is rational. However, justices said they would not take up the second part of the law regarding abortions based on race, sex, or disability because not enough appeals courts have decided the issue. The court emphasized it was not expressing any view on the merits of the second question.

The opinion stems from an antiabortion measure signed into law by then–Indiana Governor Mike Pence (R) in 2016. According to the law, the health facility where an abortion occurred is required to dispose of fetal remains either by cremation or internment unless the woman or an associated party take possession of the remains. The measure allows the woman or associated party to choose a location of final disposition provided that the parties pay the costs for such arrangements. The second part of the law prohibits an abortion from being performed solely because of the fetus’s expected race, sex, diagnosis, or disability.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky sued over the law, arguing that the measure was unconstitutional. Indiana officials countered the disposal requirements provided fetuses dignity in death and that the law’s abortion restrictions prevented discrimination of particular fetuses in light of technological advances in genetic screening. In 2018, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit struck down the entire law. The panel wrote that well-established Supreme Court precedent allows a woman to terminate her pregnancy for any reason and that the Indiana law invaded a woman’s privacy by examining the underlying basis of her decision for an abortion.

In the Supreme Court’s May 28 filing, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote separately, each stating they would have upheld the lower court’s ban of the entire law. Justice Clarence Thomas, meanwhile, wrote a lengthy separate opinion, agreeing with the court’s decision, but expressing concern over the use of abortion as a “tool of modern-day eugenics.”

“The court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s,” Justice Thomas wrote. “Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement.”

The Supreme Court’s decision on the Indiana law comes just weeks after two other stringent state abortion measures were signed into law. On May 7, 2019, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed into law a statute that bars physicians from performing an abortion after a heartbeat is detected – usually at about 6 weeks of pregnancy. On May 15, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed a law that would ban abortion at every pregnancy stage and penalize physicians with a Class A felony for performing an abortion and charge them with a Class C felony for attempting to perform an abortion.

Analysts say the Alabama law, in particular, could land in front of the Supreme Court as a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. Abortion critics have been encouraged by the Supreme Court appointment of right-leaning Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and hope the Alabama measure will drive the Supreme Court to reconsider its central holding in Roe, court watchers said.

agallegos@mdedge.com

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld part of an Indiana law that requires burial or cremation of fetal remains after an abortion, but the justices declined to address the measure’s prohibition on abortions sought because of race, sex, or disability of the fetus.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

In a three-page, unsigned opinion issued May 28, justices wrote that Indiana has a legitimate interest in proper disposition of fetal remains and that the state’s burial/cremation mandate is rational. However, justices said they would not take up the second part of the law regarding abortions based on race, sex, or disability because not enough appeals courts have decided the issue. The court emphasized it was not expressing any view on the merits of the second question.

The opinion stems from an antiabortion measure signed into law by then–Indiana Governor Mike Pence (R) in 2016. According to the law, the health facility where an abortion occurred is required to dispose of fetal remains either by cremation or internment unless the woman or an associated party take possession of the remains. The measure allows the woman or associated party to choose a location of final disposition provided that the parties pay the costs for such arrangements. The second part of the law prohibits an abortion from being performed solely because of the fetus’s expected race, sex, diagnosis, or disability.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky sued over the law, arguing that the measure was unconstitutional. Indiana officials countered the disposal requirements provided fetuses dignity in death and that the law’s abortion restrictions prevented discrimination of particular fetuses in light of technological advances in genetic screening. In 2018, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit struck down the entire law. The panel wrote that well-established Supreme Court precedent allows a woman to terminate her pregnancy for any reason and that the Indiana law invaded a woman’s privacy by examining the underlying basis of her decision for an abortion.

In the Supreme Court’s May 28 filing, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote separately, each stating they would have upheld the lower court’s ban of the entire law. Justice Clarence Thomas, meanwhile, wrote a lengthy separate opinion, agreeing with the court’s decision, but expressing concern over the use of abortion as a “tool of modern-day eugenics.”

“The court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s,” Justice Thomas wrote. “Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement.”

The Supreme Court’s decision on the Indiana law comes just weeks after two other stringent state abortion measures were signed into law. On May 7, 2019, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed into law a statute that bars physicians from performing an abortion after a heartbeat is detected – usually at about 6 weeks of pregnancy. On May 15, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed a law that would ban abortion at every pregnancy stage and penalize physicians with a Class A felony for performing an abortion and charge them with a Class C felony for attempting to perform an abortion.

Analysts say the Alabama law, in particular, could land in front of the Supreme Court as a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. Abortion critics have been encouraged by the Supreme Court appointment of right-leaning Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and hope the Alabama measure will drive the Supreme Court to reconsider its central holding in Roe, court watchers said.

agallegos@mdedge.com

TORONTO – Patients with osteoarthritis often want to know if their debilitating disease is likely to be passed on to their children. Karin Magnusson, PhD, believes she can answer that question based upon an analysis of two large Nordic studies.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“OA in the mother, but not in the father, increases the risk of surgical and clinically defined hip, knee, and hand OA in the offspring, and particularly in daughters,” she reported at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.

Dr. Magnusson, an epidemiologist at Lund (Sweden) University, and her coinvestigators, turned to the Musculoskeletal Pain in Ullensaker Study (MUST) of 630 individuals aged 40-79 with rheumatologist-diagnosed hand, hip, or knee OA by American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria and their offspring, as well as the Nor-Twin OA Study of 7,184 twins, aged 30-75, and their children. Linkage with a national registry that records virtually all joint arthroplasties performed in Norway enabled the investigators to identify which subjects in the two studies had joint surgery for OA, she explained at the meeting, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

The main outcome in this analysis was the relative risk of hip, knee, or hand OA in the sons and daughters of families in which a parent had OA at those sites, compared with the rate when neither parent had OA. The key finding: If the mother had OA, her daughters had a 13% increased risk of OA in MUST and a 44% increased risk in the Nor-Twin OA Study when compared with daughters of women without OA. In contrast, the sons of a mother with OA had no significant increase in risk of OA. And when OA was present in the father, there was no increased risk of OA at any site in his daughters or sons.

“The implication is the heredity of OA is linked to maternal genes and/or maternal-specific factors, such as the fetal environment,” according to Dr. Magnusson.

And for clinical practice, the implication is that it’s important to ask about family history of OA, and in which parent, to better predict future risk of disease transmission to the children, she added.

These Norwegian study results open the door to exploration of the possible role of mitochondrial DNA in familial clustering of OA, since mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother, Dr. Magnusson noted.

David T. Felson, MD, rose from the audience to say, “I’m a little bit worried” about the fact that when he and other Framingham Heart Study investigators looked specifically for possible mother/daughter, mother/son, father/daughter, and father/son associations for knee and hip OA, “we really didn’t find any.

“You can go through all of the explanations that you want about maternal inheritance, but I’m not sure that’s the best explanation. It might just be that what’s going on here is you’re seeing guys who are relatively young and who got their OA through injury or sports, which is fairly common in young men, and not through inheritance,” said Dr. Felson, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Boston University.

So a third observational study in an independent cohort might be needed as a tie breaker regarding the issue of OA inheritance.

Dr. Magnusson reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Magnusson K et al. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019 Apr;27[suppl 1]:S47, Abstract 33

TORONTO – Patients with osteoarthritis often want to know if their debilitating disease is likely to be passed on to their children. Karin Magnusson, PhD, believes she can answer that question based upon an analysis of two large Nordic studies.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“OA in the mother, but not in the father, increases the risk of surgical and clinically defined hip, knee, and hand OA in the offspring, and particularly in daughters,” she reported at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.

Dr. Magnusson, an epidemiologist at Lund (Sweden) University, and her coinvestigators, turned to the Musculoskeletal Pain in Ullensaker Study (MUST) of 630 individuals aged 40-79 with rheumatologist-diagnosed hand, hip, or knee OA by American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria and their offspring, as well as the Nor-Twin OA Study of 7,184 twins, aged 30-75, and their children. Linkage with a national registry that records virtually all joint arthroplasties performed in Norway enabled the investigators to identify which subjects in the two studies had joint surgery for OA, she explained at the meeting, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

The main outcome in this analysis was the relative risk of hip, knee, or hand OA in the sons and daughters of families in which a parent had OA at those sites, compared with the rate when neither parent had OA. The key finding: If the mother had OA, her daughters had a 13% increased risk of OA in MUST and a 44% increased risk in the Nor-Twin OA Study when compared with daughters of women without OA. In contrast, the sons of a mother with OA had no significant increase in risk of OA. And when OA was present in the father, there was no increased risk of OA at any site in his daughters or sons.

“The implication is the heredity of OA is linked to maternal genes and/or maternal-specific factors, such as the fetal environment,” according to Dr. Magnusson.

And for clinical practice, the implication is that it’s important to ask about family history of OA, and in which parent, to better predict future risk of disease transmission to the children, she added.

These Norwegian study results open the door to exploration of the possible role of mitochondrial DNA in familial clustering of OA, since mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother, Dr. Magnusson noted.

David T. Felson, MD, rose from the audience to say, “I’m a little bit worried” about the fact that when he and other Framingham Heart Study investigators looked specifically for possible mother/daughter, mother/son, father/daughter, and father/son associations for knee and hip OA, “we really didn’t find any.

“You can go through all of the explanations that you want about maternal inheritance, but I’m not sure that’s the best explanation. It might just be that what’s going on here is you’re seeing guys who are relatively young and who got their OA through injury or sports, which is fairly common in young men, and not through inheritance,” said Dr. Felson, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Boston University.

So a third observational study in an independent cohort might be needed as a tie breaker regarding the issue of OA inheritance.

Dr. Magnusson reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Magnusson K et al. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019 Apr;27[suppl 1]:S47, Abstract 33

TORONTO – Patients with osteoarthritis often want to know if their debilitating disease is likely to be passed on to their children. Karin Magnusson, PhD, believes she can answer that question based upon an analysis of two large Nordic studies.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“OA in the mother, but not in the father, increases the risk of surgical and clinically defined hip, knee, and hand OA in the offspring, and particularly in daughters,” she reported at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.

Dr. Magnusson, an epidemiologist at Lund (Sweden) University, and her coinvestigators, turned to the Musculoskeletal Pain in Ullensaker Study (MUST) of 630 individuals aged 40-79 with rheumatologist-diagnosed hand, hip, or knee OA by American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria and their offspring, as well as the Nor-Twin OA Study of 7,184 twins, aged 30-75, and their children. Linkage with a national registry that records virtually all joint arthroplasties performed in Norway enabled the investigators to identify which subjects in the two studies had joint surgery for OA, she explained at the meeting, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

The main outcome in this analysis was the relative risk of hip, knee, or hand OA in the sons and daughters of families in which a parent had OA at those sites, compared with the rate when neither parent had OA. The key finding: If the mother had OA, her daughters had a 13% increased risk of OA in MUST and a 44% increased risk in the Nor-Twin OA Study when compared with daughters of women without OA. In contrast, the sons of a mother with OA had no significant increase in risk of OA. And when OA was present in the father, there was no increased risk of OA at any site in his daughters or sons.

“The implication is the heredity of OA is linked to maternal genes and/or maternal-specific factors, such as the fetal environment,” according to Dr. Magnusson.

And for clinical practice, the implication is that it’s important to ask about family history of OA, and in which parent, to better predict future risk of disease transmission to the children, she added.

These Norwegian study results open the door to exploration of the possible role of mitochondrial DNA in familial clustering of OA, since mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother, Dr. Magnusson noted.

David T. Felson, MD, rose from the audience to say, “I’m a little bit worried” about the fact that when he and other Framingham Heart Study investigators looked specifically for possible mother/daughter, mother/son, father/daughter, and father/son associations for knee and hip OA, “we really didn’t find any.

“You can go through all of the explanations that you want about maternal inheritance, but I’m not sure that’s the best explanation. It might just be that what’s going on here is you’re seeing guys who are relatively young and who got their OA through injury or sports, which is fairly common in young men, and not through inheritance,” said Dr. Felson, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Boston University.

So a third observational study in an independent cohort might be needed as a tie breaker regarding the issue of OA inheritance.

Dr. Magnusson reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Magnusson K et al. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019 Apr;27[suppl 1]:S47, Abstract 33