Conference Coverage

Vasculitis of the coronary arteries is a well-recognized acute complication of Kawasaki disease, but the long-term risk of cardiovascular (CV) sequelae does not appear to be clinically meaningful for most patients, according to results from an analysis of data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

For patients and parents, these data provide “a message of reassurance,” according to Jennifer J.Y. Lee, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist affiliated with the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.

The long-term outcomes were characterized as reassuring even though rates of hypertension, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and death from CV events were higher in patients with Kawasaki disease relative to controls in a retrospective data-linkage study. In fact, these differences were highly statistically significant, but the absolute differences were extremely small.

For this analysis, the 1,174 patients diagnosed with Kawasaki disease at Dr. Lee’s institution between 1991 and 2008 were compared in a 10:1 ratio to 11,740 controls matched for factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, and geographic region. The median follow-up period was 20 years, and the maximum was 28 years.
 

Adjusted CV risks are significant

In an adjusted Cox proportional hazard ratio model, patients in the Kawasaki group had a more than twofold increase in risk for hypertension (aHR, 2.3; P < .0001) and all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.5; P = .009). They also had more than a 10-fold increase in risk for MACE (aHR, 10.3; P < .0001).

These statistics belie the clinical relevance, according to Dr. Lee. Because of the very low rates of all the measured events in both groups, there was just one more case of hypertension per 1,250 patient-years of follow-up, one more case of MACE per 833 patient-years of follow-up, and one more death for 3,846 patient years of follow-up.

Moreover, when these outcomes were graphed over time, most events occurred during the acute period or in the initial years of follow-up.

“There was not a constant increase in risk of these outcomes over time for patients with Kawasaki disease relative to the controls,” Dr. Lee reported. “The long-term prognosis for Kawasaki patients remains favorable.”

European group reports similar results

Similar results from a single-center experience were published 3 years ago. In that study, 207 Kawasaki patients treated at the University of Lausanne (Switzerland) were followed for 30 years. Complications after the acute phase were characterized as “rare.”

For example, only three patients (1.4%) had a subsequent episode of myocardial ischemia. All three had developed a coronary aneurysm during the acute phase of Kawasaki disease. The authors of that study reported that children who had not received immunoglobulins during the acute phase or who developed Kawasaki disease outside of the usual age range were more likely to have subsequent events, such as disease recurrence.

Other studies of long-term CV outcomes in patients with Kawasaki disease generally show similar data, according to James T. Gaensbauer, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“I generally agree with the premise that major complications are rare when you compare a cohort of patients with Kawasaki disease with the general population,” Dr. Gaensbauer said. However, he added, “I do not think you can say no one needs to worry.”
 

Severity of acute disease might matter

During the acute phase of Kawasaki disease, the arterial damage varies. As suggested in the University of Lausanne follow-up, patients with significant coronary aneurysms do appear to be at greater risk of long-term complications. Dr. Gaensbauer cited a statement from the American Heart Association that noted a higher risk of CV sequelae from Kawasaki disease with a greater or more severe coronary aneurysm or in the face of other evidence of damage to the arterial tree.

“The clinical course within the first 2 years of Kawasaki disease appears to be important for risk of CV complications after this time,” Dr. Gaensbauer said.

The absolute risk of CV events in patients with a more complicated acute course of Kawasaki disease remains incompletely understood, but Dr. Gaensbauer said that there are several sets of data, including these new data from the Hospital for Sick Children, that suggest that the overall prognosis is good. However, he cautioned that this reassurance does not necessarily apply to children with a difficult acute course.

According to the 2017 AHA statement on Kawasaki disease, risk stratification based on echocardiography and other measures after the acute phase of Kawasaki disease are reasonable to determine if long-term follow-up is needed. In those without abnormalities, it is reasonable to forgo further cardiology assessment.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Gaensbauer reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

Vasculitis of the coronary arteries is a well-recognized acute complication of Kawasaki disease, but the long-term risk of cardiovascular (CV) sequelae does not appear to be clinically meaningful for most patients, according to results from an analysis of data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

For patients and parents, these data provide “a message of reassurance,” according to Jennifer J.Y. Lee, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist affiliated with the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.

The long-term outcomes were characterized as reassuring even though rates of hypertension, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and death from CV events were higher in patients with Kawasaki disease relative to controls in a retrospective data-linkage study. In fact, these differences were highly statistically significant, but the absolute differences were extremely small.

For this analysis, the 1,174 patients diagnosed with Kawasaki disease at Dr. Lee’s institution between 1991 and 2008 were compared in a 10:1 ratio to 11,740 controls matched for factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, and geographic region. The median follow-up period was 20 years, and the maximum was 28 years.
 

Adjusted CV risks are significant

In an adjusted Cox proportional hazard ratio model, patients in the Kawasaki group had a more than twofold increase in risk for hypertension (aHR, 2.3; P < .0001) and all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.5; P = .009). They also had more than a 10-fold increase in risk for MACE (aHR, 10.3; P < .0001).

These statistics belie the clinical relevance, according to Dr. Lee. Because of the very low rates of all the measured events in both groups, there was just one more case of hypertension per 1,250 patient-years of follow-up, one more case of MACE per 833 patient-years of follow-up, and one more death for 3,846 patient years of follow-up.

Moreover, when these outcomes were graphed over time, most events occurred during the acute period or in the initial years of follow-up.

“There was not a constant increase in risk of these outcomes over time for patients with Kawasaki disease relative to the controls,” Dr. Lee reported. “The long-term prognosis for Kawasaki patients remains favorable.”

European group reports similar results

Similar results from a single-center experience were published 3 years ago. In that study, 207 Kawasaki patients treated at the University of Lausanne (Switzerland) were followed for 30 years. Complications after the acute phase were characterized as “rare.”

For example, only three patients (1.4%) had a subsequent episode of myocardial ischemia. All three had developed a coronary aneurysm during the acute phase of Kawasaki disease. The authors of that study reported that children who had not received immunoglobulins during the acute phase or who developed Kawasaki disease outside of the usual age range were more likely to have subsequent events, such as disease recurrence.

Other studies of long-term CV outcomes in patients with Kawasaki disease generally show similar data, according to James T. Gaensbauer, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“I generally agree with the premise that major complications are rare when you compare a cohort of patients with Kawasaki disease with the general population,” Dr. Gaensbauer said. However, he added, “I do not think you can say no one needs to worry.”
 

Severity of acute disease might matter

During the acute phase of Kawasaki disease, the arterial damage varies. As suggested in the University of Lausanne follow-up, patients with significant coronary aneurysms do appear to be at greater risk of long-term complications. Dr. Gaensbauer cited a statement from the American Heart Association that noted a higher risk of CV sequelae from Kawasaki disease with a greater or more severe coronary aneurysm or in the face of other evidence of damage to the arterial tree.

“The clinical course within the first 2 years of Kawasaki disease appears to be important for risk of CV complications after this time,” Dr. Gaensbauer said.

The absolute risk of CV events in patients with a more complicated acute course of Kawasaki disease remains incompletely understood, but Dr. Gaensbauer said that there are several sets of data, including these new data from the Hospital for Sick Children, that suggest that the overall prognosis is good. However, he cautioned that this reassurance does not necessarily apply to children with a difficult acute course.

According to the 2017 AHA statement on Kawasaki disease, risk stratification based on echocardiography and other measures after the acute phase of Kawasaki disease are reasonable to determine if long-term follow-up is needed. In those without abnormalities, it is reasonable to forgo further cardiology assessment.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Gaensbauer reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

Vasculitis of the coronary arteries is a well-recognized acute complication of Kawasaki disease, but the long-term risk of cardiovascular (CV) sequelae does not appear to be clinically meaningful for most patients, according to results from an analysis of data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

For patients and parents, these data provide “a message of reassurance,” according to Jennifer J.Y. Lee, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist affiliated with the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.

The long-term outcomes were characterized as reassuring even though rates of hypertension, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and death from CV events were higher in patients with Kawasaki disease relative to controls in a retrospective data-linkage study. In fact, these differences were highly statistically significant, but the absolute differences were extremely small.

For this analysis, the 1,174 patients diagnosed with Kawasaki disease at Dr. Lee’s institution between 1991 and 2008 were compared in a 10:1 ratio to 11,740 controls matched for factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, and geographic region. The median follow-up period was 20 years, and the maximum was 28 years.
 

Adjusted CV risks are significant

In an adjusted Cox proportional hazard ratio model, patients in the Kawasaki group had a more than twofold increase in risk for hypertension (aHR, 2.3; P < .0001) and all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.5; P = .009). They also had more than a 10-fold increase in risk for MACE (aHR, 10.3; P < .0001).

These statistics belie the clinical relevance, according to Dr. Lee. Because of the very low rates of all the measured events in both groups, there was just one more case of hypertension per 1,250 patient-years of follow-up, one more case of MACE per 833 patient-years of follow-up, and one more death for 3,846 patient years of follow-up.

Moreover, when these outcomes were graphed over time, most events occurred during the acute period or in the initial years of follow-up.

“There was not a constant increase in risk of these outcomes over time for patients with Kawasaki disease relative to the controls,” Dr. Lee reported. “The long-term prognosis for Kawasaki patients remains favorable.”

European group reports similar results

Similar results from a single-center experience were published 3 years ago. In that study, 207 Kawasaki patients treated at the University of Lausanne (Switzerland) were followed for 30 years. Complications after the acute phase were characterized as “rare.”

For example, only three patients (1.4%) had a subsequent episode of myocardial ischemia. All three had developed a coronary aneurysm during the acute phase of Kawasaki disease. The authors of that study reported that children who had not received immunoglobulins during the acute phase or who developed Kawasaki disease outside of the usual age range were more likely to have subsequent events, such as disease recurrence.

Other studies of long-term CV outcomes in patients with Kawasaki disease generally show similar data, according to James T. Gaensbauer, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“I generally agree with the premise that major complications are rare when you compare a cohort of patients with Kawasaki disease with the general population,” Dr. Gaensbauer said. However, he added, “I do not think you can say no one needs to worry.”
 

Severity of acute disease might matter

During the acute phase of Kawasaki disease, the arterial damage varies. As suggested in the University of Lausanne follow-up, patients with significant coronary aneurysms do appear to be at greater risk of long-term complications. Dr. Gaensbauer cited a statement from the American Heart Association that noted a higher risk of CV sequelae from Kawasaki disease with a greater or more severe coronary aneurysm or in the face of other evidence of damage to the arterial tree.

“The clinical course within the first 2 years of Kawasaki disease appears to be important for risk of CV complications after this time,” Dr. Gaensbauer said.

The absolute risk of CV events in patients with a more complicated acute course of Kawasaki disease remains incompletely understood, but Dr. Gaensbauer said that there are several sets of data, including these new data from the Hospital for Sick Children, that suggest that the overall prognosis is good. However, he cautioned that this reassurance does not necessarily apply to children with a difficult acute course.

According to the 2017 AHA statement on Kawasaki disease, risk stratification based on echocardiography and other measures after the acute phase of Kawasaki disease are reasonable to determine if long-term follow-up is needed. In those without abnormalities, it is reasonable to forgo further cardiology assessment.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Gaensbauer reported having no potential conflicts of interest.

The potential effectiveness of using vaginal progesterone to prevent preterm birth in two different populations was the focus of a pair of studies with mixed results at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine on Feb. 3. One study found no benefit from vaginal progesterone in those with first trimester bleeding, while the other, in a head-to-head comparison with 17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC), found vaginal progesterone performs similarly to 17-OHPC in singleton pregnancies with a history of preterm birth.

While the first study does not suggest any changes in clinical practice, the second one suggests that vaginal progesterone is an alternative to 17-OHPC, as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists currently recommends. SMFM currently only includes 17-OHPC in its guidelines.

“In otherwise low-risk pregnancies with first trimester bleeding, progesterone should not be prescribed for the prevention of miscarriage or prematurity,” Haim A. Abenhaim, MD, MPH, of the Jewish General Hospital at McGill University, Montreal, told attendees in his presentation.

”Publishing the negative result is so important because this helps the overall body of literature reduce the amount of publication bias that exists in the literature,” Michael Richley, MD, an ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Richley was not involved in the research but attended the presentation.
 

Vaginal progesterone for first trimester bleeding

Most preterm birth occurs in pregnancies with no identifiable risk factors, but first-trimester bleeding may indicate subchorionic hemorrhage from placental detachment, which can increase the risk of preterm birth. Other risk factors where progesterone has previously shown effectiveness in reducing preterm birth risk include short cervix and a history of prior preterm birth.

The first study (PREEMPT) was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted at six Canadian hospitals with 533 women. The participants all experienced bleeding within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy and a documented subchorionic hemorrhage. The trial excluded those who already required progesterone, had contraindications to progesterone or had an alternate cause of bleeding.

The intervention group included 264 women randomly assigned to use 200 mg of micronized progesterone administered with a vaginal suppository at bedtime, while the placebo group included 269 women who used a vaginal suppository with no medication, both administered until 34 weeks of pregnancy. The groups were not significantly different in age, race, or former pregnancies, live births, and miscarriages. They were also similar in clinical characteristics of bleeding and subchorionic hemorrhage.

The proportion of term births was similar between the progesterone (74.6%) and placebo (70.6%) groups (P =.3), as was the proportion of preterm births (10.2% progesterone vs. 12.3% placebo, P =.46). There were also no significant differences in the secondary outcomes of cramping, hospital admission, bed rest, or preventive measures, including pessary, cerclage, antibiotics, magnesium, and nifedipine. Newborns across both groups were statistically similar in average birth weight and distribution of birth weights and in incidence of neonatal ICU admission or respiratory distress syndrome. Adverse events were similar across both groups.

”The results are not surprising as several studies in the past have shown similar lack of efficacy,” Dr. said. “The pathophysiology of subchorionic hematoma is different from the multifactorial etiologies of spontaneous preterm birth, and given our lack of clear understanding of the actions of progesterone, the lack of efficacy in this subgroup with subchorionic hematoma is not surprising.”

Dr. Richley did note that having a low-risk population to start with may have affected the findings, which might be different in a high-risk population.

“I don’t believe this will change anything within clinical practice. At this time, progesterone is not used in any form in the setting of first trimester threatened abortion by maternal-fetal medicine specialists,” Dr. Richley said. “There may be other subgroups of clinicians who do prescribe progesterone in this setting, and these data should further encourage them to move away from this practice.”

Dr. Abenhaim noted a couple unexpected issues that occurred during the course of the study, such as underreporting of subchorionic hemorrhage with radiologic confirmation that resulted in a smaller population and a change in protocol to include patients with no identifiable secondary source of bleeding. The pandemic also halted enrollment, and the investigators halted the trial when recruitment could have continued since interim analysis showed no likely benefit.

Though first trimester bleeding is associated with a 25%-30% increased risk of miscarriage or preterm birth, the findings showed that progesterone did not prevent miscarriage or prematurity, or increase the live birth rate, in low-risk patients with first trimester bleeding.
 

Vaginal progesterone vs. 17-OHPC

Although a 2017 meta-analysis had found vaginal progesterone to be superior to 17-OHPC in preventing preterm birth, few studies were available, and they had wide confidence intervals. This open-label randomized controlled trial took place at five U.S. sites and included participants who had a singleton pregnancy less than 24 weeks along and a history of singleton preterm birth between 16 and 37 weeks. The trials excluded those with placenta previa or accreta, preterm labor, preterm premature rupture of the membranes, clinical chorioamnionitis, or a major fetal anomaly or chromosomal disorder.

Among 205 women initially randomized, 94 in each group completed the trial, either inserting 200 mg of micronized progesterone daily with a vaginal suppository or receiving 250 mg of weekly intramuscular injections of 17-OHPC from 16 to 36 weeks’ gestation. The only significant difference between the groups in demographics or clinical features was that the vaginal progesterone group had a higher proportion of multiple past preterm births (33%) compared with the 17-OHPC group (17%). Cervical length and use of cerclage were also similar between the groups.

Though 30.9% of the vaginal progesterone group delivered preterm before 37 weeks, compared with 38.3% in the 17-OHPC group, the difference was not significant (P =.28). There was a borderline statistical difference between gestational age at delivery: 37.4 weeks in the vaginal progesterone group versus 36.3 weeks in the 17-OHPC group (P =.047). Neonatal outcomes were clinically similar between the two groups. Therapy initiation did slightly differ between the groups, with an average start 1 gestational week earlier in the vaginal progesterone group (16.9 vs. 17.8, P =.001) and a higher proportion of patients in the 17-OHPC group initiating therapy after 20 weeks (16.5% vs. 2.2%, P =.001). Adherence was otherwise similar between the groups, and the groups reported similar rates and types of side effects.

The trial did not meet the primary endpoint of vaginal progesterone reducing risk of recurrent preterm birth by 50%, compared with 17-OHPC, but it may increase latency to delivery, Rupsa C. Boelig, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told attendees. Though this was the largest trial to compare vaginal progesterone with 17-OHPC for preventing preterm birth, it was underpowered to detect a difference in efficacy, to conduct subgroup analyses, and to assess secondary outcomes, Dr. Boelig noted. “Baseline difference in preterm birth risk may affect apparent relative efficacy of vaginal progesterone.”

Nevertheless, the “totality of evidence appears to be greater for vaginal progesterone,” Dr. Boelig said, making vaginal progesterone an acceptable alternative to 17-OHPC. ACOG recommendations currently include offering either, but SMFM recommendations only mention 17-OHPC.

It’s worth noting, however, that the future of 17-OHPC, a synthetic compound, compared with naturally occurring micronized progesterone, continues to be uncertain following a 2020 study that found no evidence of its efficacy, leading the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw its approval for prevention of preterm birth. ”These findings are important especially in light of the controversy surrounding 17-OHP,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at UCLA, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “It is also sometimes difficult for patients to commit to weekly 17-OHPC injections, which requires time and many doctors visits, as compared to vaginal progesterone, which patients can administer at home.” Since this study does not have a placebo group, “it does not address the question of the overall efficacy of either medication compared to a control,” Dr. Mei said. ”It is also a somewhat small patient population so the results may change with a larger population. The authors conclude it is worth readdressing the use of vaginal progesterone for these patients.”

Herman L. Hedriana, MD, professor and director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and the maternal-fetal medicine fellowship program at the University of California, Davis, also pointed out notable differences between the two compounds.

“One has to remember that the formulation and mechanism of action are very different between 17-OHPC and the vaginal application of micronized progesterone. We do not have enough data to say one is superior versus the other,” said Dr. Hedriana, who was not involved in the research. “With 17-OHPC, the mechanism of action appears to be influenced by how the drug is metabolized based on race and ethnicity makeup, and may be influence by epigenetics,” while the mechanism for vaginal progesterone is probably local “given it is applied directly next to the cervix; hence, the results are it is effective in short cervices.” But those differing mechanisms don’t change the clinical significance of the findings. “One can use vaginal progesterone or 17-OHPC based on patient preference and availability,” Dr. Hedriana said.

The researchers of both studies reported no personal financial or industry disclosures, though Dr. Boelig disclosed that she had taken 17-OHPC and had cerclages during both her pregnancies, which resulted in healthy children today. The PREEMPT trial was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The head-to-head trial was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Development, the March of Dimes, the EW Thrasher Foundation, the PhRMA Foundation, and Covis Pharma, who manufactures the 17-OHPC drug Makena.

This story was updated on 2/8/2022.

The potential effectiveness of using vaginal progesterone to prevent preterm birth in two different populations was the focus of a pair of studies with mixed results at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine on Feb. 3. One study found no benefit from vaginal progesterone in those with first trimester bleeding, while the other, in a head-to-head comparison with 17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC), found vaginal progesterone performs similarly to 17-OHPC in singleton pregnancies with a history of preterm birth.

While the first study does not suggest any changes in clinical practice, the second one suggests that vaginal progesterone is an alternative to 17-OHPC, as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists currently recommends. SMFM currently only includes 17-OHPC in its guidelines.

“In otherwise low-risk pregnancies with first trimester bleeding, progesterone should not be prescribed for the prevention of miscarriage or prematurity,” Haim A. Abenhaim, MD, MPH, of the Jewish General Hospital at McGill University, Montreal, told attendees in his presentation.

”Publishing the negative result is so important because this helps the overall body of literature reduce the amount of publication bias that exists in the literature,” Michael Richley, MD, an ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Richley was not involved in the research but attended the presentation.
 

Vaginal progesterone for first trimester bleeding

Most preterm birth occurs in pregnancies with no identifiable risk factors, but first-trimester bleeding may indicate subchorionic hemorrhage from placental detachment, which can increase the risk of preterm birth. Other risk factors where progesterone has previously shown effectiveness in reducing preterm birth risk include short cervix and a history of prior preterm birth.

The first study (PREEMPT) was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted at six Canadian hospitals with 533 women. The participants all experienced bleeding within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy and a documented subchorionic hemorrhage. The trial excluded those who already required progesterone, had contraindications to progesterone or had an alternate cause of bleeding.

The intervention group included 264 women randomly assigned to use 200 mg of micronized progesterone administered with a vaginal suppository at bedtime, while the placebo group included 269 women who used a vaginal suppository with no medication, both administered until 34 weeks of pregnancy. The groups were not significantly different in age, race, or former pregnancies, live births, and miscarriages. They were also similar in clinical characteristics of bleeding and subchorionic hemorrhage.

The proportion of term births was similar between the progesterone (74.6%) and placebo (70.6%) groups (P =.3), as was the proportion of preterm births (10.2% progesterone vs. 12.3% placebo, P =.46). There were also no significant differences in the secondary outcomes of cramping, hospital admission, bed rest, or preventive measures, including pessary, cerclage, antibiotics, magnesium, and nifedipine. Newborns across both groups were statistically similar in average birth weight and distribution of birth weights and in incidence of neonatal ICU admission or respiratory distress syndrome. Adverse events were similar across both groups.

”The results are not surprising as several studies in the past have shown similar lack of efficacy,” Dr. said. “The pathophysiology of subchorionic hematoma is different from the multifactorial etiologies of spontaneous preterm birth, and given our lack of clear understanding of the actions of progesterone, the lack of efficacy in this subgroup with subchorionic hematoma is not surprising.”

Dr. Richley did note that having a low-risk population to start with may have affected the findings, which might be different in a high-risk population.

“I don’t believe this will change anything within clinical practice. At this time, progesterone is not used in any form in the setting of first trimester threatened abortion by maternal-fetal medicine specialists,” Dr. Richley said. “There may be other subgroups of clinicians who do prescribe progesterone in this setting, and these data should further encourage them to move away from this practice.”

Dr. Abenhaim noted a couple unexpected issues that occurred during the course of the study, such as underreporting of subchorionic hemorrhage with radiologic confirmation that resulted in a smaller population and a change in protocol to include patients with no identifiable secondary source of bleeding. The pandemic also halted enrollment, and the investigators halted the trial when recruitment could have continued since interim analysis showed no likely benefit.

Though first trimester bleeding is associated with a 25%-30% increased risk of miscarriage or preterm birth, the findings showed that progesterone did not prevent miscarriage or prematurity, or increase the live birth rate, in low-risk patients with first trimester bleeding.
 

Vaginal progesterone vs. 17-OHPC

Although a 2017 meta-analysis had found vaginal progesterone to be superior to 17-OHPC in preventing preterm birth, few studies were available, and they had wide confidence intervals. This open-label randomized controlled trial took place at five U.S. sites and included participants who had a singleton pregnancy less than 24 weeks along and a history of singleton preterm birth between 16 and 37 weeks. The trials excluded those with placenta previa or accreta, preterm labor, preterm premature rupture of the membranes, clinical chorioamnionitis, or a major fetal anomaly or chromosomal disorder.

Among 205 women initially randomized, 94 in each group completed the trial, either inserting 200 mg of micronized progesterone daily with a vaginal suppository or receiving 250 mg of weekly intramuscular injections of 17-OHPC from 16 to 36 weeks’ gestation. The only significant difference between the groups in demographics or clinical features was that the vaginal progesterone group had a higher proportion of multiple past preterm births (33%) compared with the 17-OHPC group (17%). Cervical length and use of cerclage were also similar between the groups.

Though 30.9% of the vaginal progesterone group delivered preterm before 37 weeks, compared with 38.3% in the 17-OHPC group, the difference was not significant (P =.28). There was a borderline statistical difference between gestational age at delivery: 37.4 weeks in the vaginal progesterone group versus 36.3 weeks in the 17-OHPC group (P =.047). Neonatal outcomes were clinically similar between the two groups. Therapy initiation did slightly differ between the groups, with an average start 1 gestational week earlier in the vaginal progesterone group (16.9 vs. 17.8, P =.001) and a higher proportion of patients in the 17-OHPC group initiating therapy after 20 weeks (16.5% vs. 2.2%, P =.001). Adherence was otherwise similar between the groups, and the groups reported similar rates and types of side effects.

The trial did not meet the primary endpoint of vaginal progesterone reducing risk of recurrent preterm birth by 50%, compared with 17-OHPC, but it may increase latency to delivery, Rupsa C. Boelig, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told attendees. Though this was the largest trial to compare vaginal progesterone with 17-OHPC for preventing preterm birth, it was underpowered to detect a difference in efficacy, to conduct subgroup analyses, and to assess secondary outcomes, Dr. Boelig noted. “Baseline difference in preterm birth risk may affect apparent relative efficacy of vaginal progesterone.”

Nevertheless, the “totality of evidence appears to be greater for vaginal progesterone,” Dr. Boelig said, making vaginal progesterone an acceptable alternative to 17-OHPC. ACOG recommendations currently include offering either, but SMFM recommendations only mention 17-OHPC.

It’s worth noting, however, that the future of 17-OHPC, a synthetic compound, compared with naturally occurring micronized progesterone, continues to be uncertain following a 2020 study that found no evidence of its efficacy, leading the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw its approval for prevention of preterm birth. ”These findings are important especially in light of the controversy surrounding 17-OHP,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at UCLA, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “It is also sometimes difficult for patients to commit to weekly 17-OHPC injections, which requires time and many doctors visits, as compared to vaginal progesterone, which patients can administer at home.” Since this study does not have a placebo group, “it does not address the question of the overall efficacy of either medication compared to a control,” Dr. Mei said. ”It is also a somewhat small patient population so the results may change with a larger population. The authors conclude it is worth readdressing the use of vaginal progesterone for these patients.”

Herman L. Hedriana, MD, professor and director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and the maternal-fetal medicine fellowship program at the University of California, Davis, also pointed out notable differences between the two compounds.

“One has to remember that the formulation and mechanism of action are very different between 17-OHPC and the vaginal application of micronized progesterone. We do not have enough data to say one is superior versus the other,” said Dr. Hedriana, who was not involved in the research. “With 17-OHPC, the mechanism of action appears to be influenced by how the drug is metabolized based on race and ethnicity makeup, and may be influence by epigenetics,” while the mechanism for vaginal progesterone is probably local “given it is applied directly next to the cervix; hence, the results are it is effective in short cervices.” But those differing mechanisms don’t change the clinical significance of the findings. “One can use vaginal progesterone or 17-OHPC based on patient preference and availability,” Dr. Hedriana said.

The researchers of both studies reported no personal financial or industry disclosures, though Dr. Boelig disclosed that she had taken 17-OHPC and had cerclages during both her pregnancies, which resulted in healthy children today. The PREEMPT trial was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The head-to-head trial was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Development, the March of Dimes, the EW Thrasher Foundation, the PhRMA Foundation, and Covis Pharma, who manufactures the 17-OHPC drug Makena.

This story was updated on 2/8/2022.

The potential effectiveness of using vaginal progesterone to prevent preterm birth in two different populations was the focus of a pair of studies with mixed results at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine on Feb. 3. One study found no benefit from vaginal progesterone in those with first trimester bleeding, while the other, in a head-to-head comparison with 17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC), found vaginal progesterone performs similarly to 17-OHPC in singleton pregnancies with a history of preterm birth.

While the first study does not suggest any changes in clinical practice, the second one suggests that vaginal progesterone is an alternative to 17-OHPC, as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists currently recommends. SMFM currently only includes 17-OHPC in its guidelines.

“In otherwise low-risk pregnancies with first trimester bleeding, progesterone should not be prescribed for the prevention of miscarriage or prematurity,” Haim A. Abenhaim, MD, MPH, of the Jewish General Hospital at McGill University, Montreal, told attendees in his presentation.

”Publishing the negative result is so important because this helps the overall body of literature reduce the amount of publication bias that exists in the literature,” Michael Richley, MD, an ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Richley was not involved in the research but attended the presentation.
 

Vaginal progesterone for first trimester bleeding

Most preterm birth occurs in pregnancies with no identifiable risk factors, but first-trimester bleeding may indicate subchorionic hemorrhage from placental detachment, which can increase the risk of preterm birth. Other risk factors where progesterone has previously shown effectiveness in reducing preterm birth risk include short cervix and a history of prior preterm birth.

The first study (PREEMPT) was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted at six Canadian hospitals with 533 women. The participants all experienced bleeding within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy and a documented subchorionic hemorrhage. The trial excluded those who already required progesterone, had contraindications to progesterone or had an alternate cause of bleeding.

The intervention group included 264 women randomly assigned to use 200 mg of micronized progesterone administered with a vaginal suppository at bedtime, while the placebo group included 269 women who used a vaginal suppository with no medication, both administered until 34 weeks of pregnancy. The groups were not significantly different in age, race, or former pregnancies, live births, and miscarriages. They were also similar in clinical characteristics of bleeding and subchorionic hemorrhage.

The proportion of term births was similar between the progesterone (74.6%) and placebo (70.6%) groups (P =.3), as was the proportion of preterm births (10.2% progesterone vs. 12.3% placebo, P =.46). There were also no significant differences in the secondary outcomes of cramping, hospital admission, bed rest, or preventive measures, including pessary, cerclage, antibiotics, magnesium, and nifedipine. Newborns across both groups were statistically similar in average birth weight and distribution of birth weights and in incidence of neonatal ICU admission or respiratory distress syndrome. Adverse events were similar across both groups.

”The results are not surprising as several studies in the past have shown similar lack of efficacy,” Dr. said. “The pathophysiology of subchorionic hematoma is different from the multifactorial etiologies of spontaneous preterm birth, and given our lack of clear understanding of the actions of progesterone, the lack of efficacy in this subgroup with subchorionic hematoma is not surprising.”

Dr. Richley did note that having a low-risk population to start with may have affected the findings, which might be different in a high-risk population.

“I don’t believe this will change anything within clinical practice. At this time, progesterone is not used in any form in the setting of first trimester threatened abortion by maternal-fetal medicine specialists,” Dr. Richley said. “There may be other subgroups of clinicians who do prescribe progesterone in this setting, and these data should further encourage them to move away from this practice.”

Dr. Abenhaim noted a couple unexpected issues that occurred during the course of the study, such as underreporting of subchorionic hemorrhage with radiologic confirmation that resulted in a smaller population and a change in protocol to include patients with no identifiable secondary source of bleeding. The pandemic also halted enrollment, and the investigators halted the trial when recruitment could have continued since interim analysis showed no likely benefit.

Though first trimester bleeding is associated with a 25%-30% increased risk of miscarriage or preterm birth, the findings showed that progesterone did not prevent miscarriage or prematurity, or increase the live birth rate, in low-risk patients with first trimester bleeding.
 

Vaginal progesterone vs. 17-OHPC

Although a 2017 meta-analysis had found vaginal progesterone to be superior to 17-OHPC in preventing preterm birth, few studies were available, and they had wide confidence intervals. This open-label randomized controlled trial took place at five U.S. sites and included participants who had a singleton pregnancy less than 24 weeks along and a history of singleton preterm birth between 16 and 37 weeks. The trials excluded those with placenta previa or accreta, preterm labor, preterm premature rupture of the membranes, clinical chorioamnionitis, or a major fetal anomaly or chromosomal disorder.

Among 205 women initially randomized, 94 in each group completed the trial, either inserting 200 mg of micronized progesterone daily with a vaginal suppository or receiving 250 mg of weekly intramuscular injections of 17-OHPC from 16 to 36 weeks’ gestation. The only significant difference between the groups in demographics or clinical features was that the vaginal progesterone group had a higher proportion of multiple past preterm births (33%) compared with the 17-OHPC group (17%). Cervical length and use of cerclage were also similar between the groups.

Though 30.9% of the vaginal progesterone group delivered preterm before 37 weeks, compared with 38.3% in the 17-OHPC group, the difference was not significant (P =.28). There was a borderline statistical difference between gestational age at delivery: 37.4 weeks in the vaginal progesterone group versus 36.3 weeks in the 17-OHPC group (P =.047). Neonatal outcomes were clinically similar between the two groups. Therapy initiation did slightly differ between the groups, with an average start 1 gestational week earlier in the vaginal progesterone group (16.9 vs. 17.8, P =.001) and a higher proportion of patients in the 17-OHPC group initiating therapy after 20 weeks (16.5% vs. 2.2%, P =.001). Adherence was otherwise similar between the groups, and the groups reported similar rates and types of side effects.

The trial did not meet the primary endpoint of vaginal progesterone reducing risk of recurrent preterm birth by 50%, compared with 17-OHPC, but it may increase latency to delivery, Rupsa C. Boelig, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told attendees. Though this was the largest trial to compare vaginal progesterone with 17-OHPC for preventing preterm birth, it was underpowered to detect a difference in efficacy, to conduct subgroup analyses, and to assess secondary outcomes, Dr. Boelig noted. “Baseline difference in preterm birth risk may affect apparent relative efficacy of vaginal progesterone.”

Nevertheless, the “totality of evidence appears to be greater for vaginal progesterone,” Dr. Boelig said, making vaginal progesterone an acceptable alternative to 17-OHPC. ACOG recommendations currently include offering either, but SMFM recommendations only mention 17-OHPC.

It’s worth noting, however, that the future of 17-OHPC, a synthetic compound, compared with naturally occurring micronized progesterone, continues to be uncertain following a 2020 study that found no evidence of its efficacy, leading the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw its approval for prevention of preterm birth. ”These findings are important especially in light of the controversy surrounding 17-OHP,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at UCLA, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “It is also sometimes difficult for patients to commit to weekly 17-OHPC injections, which requires time and many doctors visits, as compared to vaginal progesterone, which patients can administer at home.” Since this study does not have a placebo group, “it does not address the question of the overall efficacy of either medication compared to a control,” Dr. Mei said. ”It is also a somewhat small patient population so the results may change with a larger population. The authors conclude it is worth readdressing the use of vaginal progesterone for these patients.”

Herman L. Hedriana, MD, professor and director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and the maternal-fetal medicine fellowship program at the University of California, Davis, also pointed out notable differences between the two compounds.

“One has to remember that the formulation and mechanism of action are very different between 17-OHPC and the vaginal application of micronized progesterone. We do not have enough data to say one is superior versus the other,” said Dr. Hedriana, who was not involved in the research. “With 17-OHPC, the mechanism of action appears to be influenced by how the drug is metabolized based on race and ethnicity makeup, and may be influence by epigenetics,” while the mechanism for vaginal progesterone is probably local “given it is applied directly next to the cervix; hence, the results are it is effective in short cervices.” But those differing mechanisms don’t change the clinical significance of the findings. “One can use vaginal progesterone or 17-OHPC based on patient preference and availability,” Dr. Hedriana said.

The researchers of both studies reported no personal financial or industry disclosures, though Dr. Boelig disclosed that she had taken 17-OHPC and had cerclages during both her pregnancies, which resulted in healthy children today. The PREEMPT trial was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The head-to-head trial was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Development, the March of Dimes, the EW Thrasher Foundation, the PhRMA Foundation, and Covis Pharma, who manufactures the 17-OHPC drug Makena.

This story was updated on 2/8/2022.

Low-dose aspirin may increase risk of postpartum bleeding if patients don’t discontinue its use at least 7 days before delivery, but it’s otherwise unclear whether its use increases bleeding risk, according to research presented Feb. 5 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“These findings were a little surprising to me because we have generally been taught that aspirin is safe to continue up until delivery with minimal risk,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “Theoretically it makes sense that it may increase bleeding risk, but multiple studies in the past analyzing its use with gynecological surgery show minimal risk, which was conferred to the obstetrical population as well.”

She noted, however, that patients prescribed low-dose aspirin already have risk factors that may increase their risk of postpartum bleeding, and the study’s finding of possible increased risk was not statistically significant after accounting for those confounders. “I wouldn’t change my practice management over it, but it does raise awareness that all interventions likely come with some risk,” Dr. Mei said.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are responsible for 6.6% of U.S. pregnancy-related deaths. The SMFM currently recommends low-dose aspirin starting at 12 weeks’ gestation in patients at high risk for preeclampsia, which includes people with multifetal gestation, chronic hypertension, pregestational diabetes, renal disease, autoimmune disease, or a history of preeclampsia. However, previous research has shown mixed results on the safety of low-dose aspirin in terms of bleeding risk, Kelsey White, MD, a second-year maternal-fetal medicine fellow of the Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told attendees.

This retrospective study compared a bleeding composite endpoint among those who did and did not take low-dose aspirin between January 2018 and April 2021. The composite included an estimated blood loss of greater than 1,000 mL, postpartum hemorrhage based on ICD-9/10 code diagnosis, and red blood cell transfusion. The researchers also compared bleeding risk within the aspirin group based on discontinuation at greater or less than 7 days before delivery.

Among 16,980 patients, 11.3% were prescribed low-dose aspirin. The patients prescribed low-dose aspirin significantly differed from those not prescribed it in all demographic and clinical characteristics except placenta accreta spectrum. The average age of the aspirin group was 39 years, compared with 24 years in the nonaspirin group (P < .01). More of the aspirin group patients were Hispanic and Black, and 52.3% of patients taking aspirin had a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², compared with 22.9% of the nonaspirin group. Rates of diabetes, lupus, fibroids, nonaspirin anticoagulation use, cesarean delivery, and preterm delivery were all greater in the aspirin group.

In addition, 43.9% of the patients in the aspirin group had a hypertensive disorder, including 20.2% with preeclampsia, compared with 17.1% with hypertensive disorders, including 6.2% with preeclampsia, in the group not taking aspirin (P < .0001). “This shows that a high-risk population was prescribed aspirin, which correlates to the recommended prescription guidelines,” Dr. White said.

The postpartum bleeding composite outcome occurred in 14.7% of patients in the low-dose aspirin group, compared with 9.2% of patients in the nonaspirin group, for an unadjusted 1.7 times greater risk of bleeding (95% confidence interval, 1.49-1.96). After adjustment for confounders, the risk declined and was no longer statistically significant (aOR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98-1.34).

Meanwhile, 15% of those who discontinued aspirin within 7 days of delivery had postpartum bleeding, compared with 9% of those who discontinued aspirin at 7 or more days before delivery (P = .03).

Therefore, while the study found only a possible, nonsignificant association between low-dose aspirin and postpartum bleeding, risk of bleeding was significantly greater among those who discontinued aspirin only in the last week before delivery.

”Our study is timely and supports a recent Swedish study [that] found an increased risk of intrapartum bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage, and postpartum hematoma,” Dr. White said. She also noted that the United States Preventive Services Task Force changed their recommendation in 2021 for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis for cardiovascular disease.

“They now recommend against the use of low-dose aspirin for prevention in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. White said. “The change in recommendations came after recent randomized control trials showed that low-dose aspirin had very little benefit and may increase the risk of bleeding.”

However, Dr. White added that they “do not believe this study should be used to make any clinical decisions.” While the study had a large sample size, it was limited by its retrospective reliance on EMR data, including the EMR medication list, and the researchers couldn’t assess patient compliance or patient use of over-the-counter aspirin not recorded in the EMR.

Deirdre Lyell, MD, a professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed that the findings should not impact clinical practice given its limitations.

“The investigators could not entirely identify who stopped low-dose aspirin and when. When they estimated timing of stoppage of low-dose aspirin, their data suggested a small benefit among those who discontinued it at least 7 days before delivery, though this should be interpreted with caution, given the potential inaccuracy in these data,” Dr. Lyell, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “Their study did not examine factors that should be used to confirm if there are real differences in blood loss, such as changes in blood counts before and after delivery, or more use of medications that we use to stop heavy bleeding.”

In fact, Dr. Lyell noted, other research at the SMFM meeting found ”that low-dose aspirin is not used frequently enough in patients who might benefit, such as those at high risk for preeclampsia,” she said. ”Low-dose aspirin among those at increased risk has been shown to reduce rates of preeclampsia, reducing the likelihood of risky situations for moms and babies.”

The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Lyell has consulted for Bloomlife, a uterine contraction and fetal monitor. Dr. White and Dr. Mei had no disclosures.
 

Low-dose aspirin may increase risk of postpartum bleeding if patients don’t discontinue its use at least 7 days before delivery, but it’s otherwise unclear whether its use increases bleeding risk, according to research presented Feb. 5 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“These findings were a little surprising to me because we have generally been taught that aspirin is safe to continue up until delivery with minimal risk,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “Theoretically it makes sense that it may increase bleeding risk, but multiple studies in the past analyzing its use with gynecological surgery show minimal risk, which was conferred to the obstetrical population as well.”

She noted, however, that patients prescribed low-dose aspirin already have risk factors that may increase their risk of postpartum bleeding, and the study’s finding of possible increased risk was not statistically significant after accounting for those confounders. “I wouldn’t change my practice management over it, but it does raise awareness that all interventions likely come with some risk,” Dr. Mei said.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are responsible for 6.6% of U.S. pregnancy-related deaths. The SMFM currently recommends low-dose aspirin starting at 12 weeks’ gestation in patients at high risk for preeclampsia, which includes people with multifetal gestation, chronic hypertension, pregestational diabetes, renal disease, autoimmune disease, or a history of preeclampsia. However, previous research has shown mixed results on the safety of low-dose aspirin in terms of bleeding risk, Kelsey White, MD, a second-year maternal-fetal medicine fellow of the Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told attendees.

This retrospective study compared a bleeding composite endpoint among those who did and did not take low-dose aspirin between January 2018 and April 2021. The composite included an estimated blood loss of greater than 1,000 mL, postpartum hemorrhage based on ICD-9/10 code diagnosis, and red blood cell transfusion. The researchers also compared bleeding risk within the aspirin group based on discontinuation at greater or less than 7 days before delivery.

Among 16,980 patients, 11.3% were prescribed low-dose aspirin. The patients prescribed low-dose aspirin significantly differed from those not prescribed it in all demographic and clinical characteristics except placenta accreta spectrum. The average age of the aspirin group was 39 years, compared with 24 years in the nonaspirin group (P < .01). More of the aspirin group patients were Hispanic and Black, and 52.3% of patients taking aspirin had a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², compared with 22.9% of the nonaspirin group. Rates of diabetes, lupus, fibroids, nonaspirin anticoagulation use, cesarean delivery, and preterm delivery were all greater in the aspirin group.

In addition, 43.9% of the patients in the aspirin group had a hypertensive disorder, including 20.2% with preeclampsia, compared with 17.1% with hypertensive disorders, including 6.2% with preeclampsia, in the group not taking aspirin (P < .0001). “This shows that a high-risk population was prescribed aspirin, which correlates to the recommended prescription guidelines,” Dr. White said.

The postpartum bleeding composite outcome occurred in 14.7% of patients in the low-dose aspirin group, compared with 9.2% of patients in the nonaspirin group, for an unadjusted 1.7 times greater risk of bleeding (95% confidence interval, 1.49-1.96). After adjustment for confounders, the risk declined and was no longer statistically significant (aOR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98-1.34).

Meanwhile, 15% of those who discontinued aspirin within 7 days of delivery had postpartum bleeding, compared with 9% of those who discontinued aspirin at 7 or more days before delivery (P = .03).

Therefore, while the study found only a possible, nonsignificant association between low-dose aspirin and postpartum bleeding, risk of bleeding was significantly greater among those who discontinued aspirin only in the last week before delivery.

”Our study is timely and supports a recent Swedish study [that] found an increased risk of intrapartum bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage, and postpartum hematoma,” Dr. White said. She also noted that the United States Preventive Services Task Force changed their recommendation in 2021 for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis for cardiovascular disease.

“They now recommend against the use of low-dose aspirin for prevention in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. White said. “The change in recommendations came after recent randomized control trials showed that low-dose aspirin had very little benefit and may increase the risk of bleeding.”

However, Dr. White added that they “do not believe this study should be used to make any clinical decisions.” While the study had a large sample size, it was limited by its retrospective reliance on EMR data, including the EMR medication list, and the researchers couldn’t assess patient compliance or patient use of over-the-counter aspirin not recorded in the EMR.

Deirdre Lyell, MD, a professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed that the findings should not impact clinical practice given its limitations.

“The investigators could not entirely identify who stopped low-dose aspirin and when. When they estimated timing of stoppage of low-dose aspirin, their data suggested a small benefit among those who discontinued it at least 7 days before delivery, though this should be interpreted with caution, given the potential inaccuracy in these data,” Dr. Lyell, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “Their study did not examine factors that should be used to confirm if there are real differences in blood loss, such as changes in blood counts before and after delivery, or more use of medications that we use to stop heavy bleeding.”

In fact, Dr. Lyell noted, other research at the SMFM meeting found ”that low-dose aspirin is not used frequently enough in patients who might benefit, such as those at high risk for preeclampsia,” she said. ”Low-dose aspirin among those at increased risk has been shown to reduce rates of preeclampsia, reducing the likelihood of risky situations for moms and babies.”

The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Lyell has consulted for Bloomlife, a uterine contraction and fetal monitor. Dr. White and Dr. Mei had no disclosures.
 

Low-dose aspirin may increase risk of postpartum bleeding if patients don’t discontinue its use at least 7 days before delivery, but it’s otherwise unclear whether its use increases bleeding risk, according to research presented Feb. 5 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“These findings were a little surprising to me because we have generally been taught that aspirin is safe to continue up until delivery with minimal risk,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “Theoretically it makes sense that it may increase bleeding risk, but multiple studies in the past analyzing its use with gynecological surgery show minimal risk, which was conferred to the obstetrical population as well.”

She noted, however, that patients prescribed low-dose aspirin already have risk factors that may increase their risk of postpartum bleeding, and the study’s finding of possible increased risk was not statistically significant after accounting for those confounders. “I wouldn’t change my practice management over it, but it does raise awareness that all interventions likely come with some risk,” Dr. Mei said.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are responsible for 6.6% of U.S. pregnancy-related deaths. The SMFM currently recommends low-dose aspirin starting at 12 weeks’ gestation in patients at high risk for preeclampsia, which includes people with multifetal gestation, chronic hypertension, pregestational diabetes, renal disease, autoimmune disease, or a history of preeclampsia. However, previous research has shown mixed results on the safety of low-dose aspirin in terms of bleeding risk, Kelsey White, MD, a second-year maternal-fetal medicine fellow of the Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told attendees.

This retrospective study compared a bleeding composite endpoint among those who did and did not take low-dose aspirin between January 2018 and April 2021. The composite included an estimated blood loss of greater than 1,000 mL, postpartum hemorrhage based on ICD-9/10 code diagnosis, and red blood cell transfusion. The researchers also compared bleeding risk within the aspirin group based on discontinuation at greater or less than 7 days before delivery.

Among 16,980 patients, 11.3% were prescribed low-dose aspirin. The patients prescribed low-dose aspirin significantly differed from those not prescribed it in all demographic and clinical characteristics except placenta accreta spectrum. The average age of the aspirin group was 39 years, compared with 24 years in the nonaspirin group (P < .01). More of the aspirin group patients were Hispanic and Black, and 52.3% of patients taking aspirin had a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², compared with 22.9% of the nonaspirin group. Rates of diabetes, lupus, fibroids, nonaspirin anticoagulation use, cesarean delivery, and preterm delivery were all greater in the aspirin group.

In addition, 43.9% of the patients in the aspirin group had a hypertensive disorder, including 20.2% with preeclampsia, compared with 17.1% with hypertensive disorders, including 6.2% with preeclampsia, in the group not taking aspirin (P < .0001). “This shows that a high-risk population was prescribed aspirin, which correlates to the recommended prescription guidelines,” Dr. White said.

The postpartum bleeding composite outcome occurred in 14.7% of patients in the low-dose aspirin group, compared with 9.2% of patients in the nonaspirin group, for an unadjusted 1.7 times greater risk of bleeding (95% confidence interval, 1.49-1.96). After adjustment for confounders, the risk declined and was no longer statistically significant (aOR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98-1.34).

Meanwhile, 15% of those who discontinued aspirin within 7 days of delivery had postpartum bleeding, compared with 9% of those who discontinued aspirin at 7 or more days before delivery (P = .03).

Therefore, while the study found only a possible, nonsignificant association between low-dose aspirin and postpartum bleeding, risk of bleeding was significantly greater among those who discontinued aspirin only in the last week before delivery.

”Our study is timely and supports a recent Swedish study [that] found an increased risk of intrapartum bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage, and postpartum hematoma,” Dr. White said. She also noted that the United States Preventive Services Task Force changed their recommendation in 2021 for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis for cardiovascular disease.

“They now recommend against the use of low-dose aspirin for prevention in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. White said. “The change in recommendations came after recent randomized control trials showed that low-dose aspirin had very little benefit and may increase the risk of bleeding.”

However, Dr. White added that they “do not believe this study should be used to make any clinical decisions.” While the study had a large sample size, it was limited by its retrospective reliance on EMR data, including the EMR medication list, and the researchers couldn’t assess patient compliance or patient use of over-the-counter aspirin not recorded in the EMR.

Deirdre Lyell, MD, a professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed that the findings should not impact clinical practice given its limitations.

“The investigators could not entirely identify who stopped low-dose aspirin and when. When they estimated timing of stoppage of low-dose aspirin, their data suggested a small benefit among those who discontinued it at least 7 days before delivery, though this should be interpreted with caution, given the potential inaccuracy in these data,” Dr. Lyell, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “Their study did not examine factors that should be used to confirm if there are real differences in blood loss, such as changes in blood counts before and after delivery, or more use of medications that we use to stop heavy bleeding.”

In fact, Dr. Lyell noted, other research at the SMFM meeting found ”that low-dose aspirin is not used frequently enough in patients who might benefit, such as those at high risk for preeclampsia,” she said. ”Low-dose aspirin among those at increased risk has been shown to reduce rates of preeclampsia, reducing the likelihood of risky situations for moms and babies.”

The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Lyell has consulted for Bloomlife, a uterine contraction and fetal monitor. Dr. White and Dr. Mei had no disclosures.
 

Vaginal cleansing showed no reduction in morbidity when performed before unscheduled cesarean deliveries, researchers reported at the 2022 Pregnancy Meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Several studies have evaluated vaginal cleansing prior to cesarean delivery, with mixed results. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends clinicians consider cleansing prior to unscheduled cesareans, but that advice appears not to be widely heeded.

The new findings, from what the researchers called the single largest study of vaginal cleansing prior to cesarean delivery in the United States, showed no difference in post-cesarean infections when the vagina was cleansed with povidone-iodine prior to unscheduled cesarean delivery.

“These findings do not support routine vaginal cleansing prior to unscheduled cesarean deliveries,” lead author Lorene Atkins Temming, MD, medical director of labor and delivery at Atrium Health Wake Forest School of Medicine, Charlotte, North Carolina, told this news organization. The research was conducted at and sponsored by Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, where Dr. Temming did her fellowship.

Dr. Temming’s group compared vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine in addition to routine abdominal cleansing to abdominal cleansing alone. Among the primary outcomes of the study was the effect of cleansing on post-cesarean infectious morbidity.

“There is a higher risk of infectious complications after cesarean delivery than other gynecologic surgeries,” Dr. Temming told this news organization. “While the reason for this isn’t entirely clear, it is thought to be because cesareans are often performed after a patient’s cervix is dilated. This dilation can allow normal bacteria that live in the vagina to ascend into the uterus and can increase the risk of infections.”

Patients undergoing cesarean delivery after labor were randomly assigned to undergo preoperative abdominal cleansing only (n = 304) or preoperative abdominal cleansing plus vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine (n = 304). Women were included in the analysis if they underwent cesareans after regular contractions and any cervical dilation, if their membranes ruptured, or if they had the procedure performed when they were more than 4 cm dilated.

The primary outcome was composite infectious morbidity, a catchall that included surgical-site infection, maternal fever, endometritis, and wound complications within 30 days after cesarean delivery. The secondary outcomes were hospital readmission, visits to the emergency department, and treatment for neonatal sepsis.

The researchers observed no significant difference in the primary composite outcome between the two groups (11.7% vs. 11.7%, P = .98; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.5). “Vaginal cleansing appears to be unnecessary when preoperative antibiotics and skin antisepsis are performed,” Dr. Temming said.

Jennifer L. Lew, MD, an ob/gyn at Northwestern Medicine Kishwaukee Hospital in Dekalb, Illinois, said current practice regarding preparation for unscheduled cesarean surgery includes chlorhexidine on the abdomen and povidone-iodine for introducing a Foley catheter into the urethra.

“Many patients may already have a catheter in place due to labor and epidural, so they would not need” vaginal prep, Dr. Lew said. “Currently, the standard does not require doing a vaginal prep for any cesarean sections, those in labor or not.”

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vaginal cleansing showed no reduction in morbidity when performed before unscheduled cesarean deliveries, researchers reported at the 2022 Pregnancy Meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Several studies have evaluated vaginal cleansing prior to cesarean delivery, with mixed results. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends clinicians consider cleansing prior to unscheduled cesareans, but that advice appears not to be widely heeded.

The new findings, from what the researchers called the single largest study of vaginal cleansing prior to cesarean delivery in the United States, showed no difference in post-cesarean infections when the vagina was cleansed with povidone-iodine prior to unscheduled cesarean delivery.

“These findings do not support routine vaginal cleansing prior to unscheduled cesarean deliveries,” lead author Lorene Atkins Temming, MD, medical director of labor and delivery at Atrium Health Wake Forest School of Medicine, Charlotte, North Carolina, told this news organization. The research was conducted at and sponsored by Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, where Dr. Temming did her fellowship.

Dr. Temming’s group compared vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine in addition to routine abdominal cleansing to abdominal cleansing alone. Among the primary outcomes of the study was the effect of cleansing on post-cesarean infectious morbidity.

“There is a higher risk of infectious complications after cesarean delivery than other gynecologic surgeries,” Dr. Temming told this news organization. “While the reason for this isn’t entirely clear, it is thought to be because cesareans are often performed after a patient’s cervix is dilated. This dilation can allow normal bacteria that live in the vagina to ascend into the uterus and can increase the risk of infections.”

Patients undergoing cesarean delivery after labor were randomly assigned to undergo preoperative abdominal cleansing only (n = 304) or preoperative abdominal cleansing plus vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine (n = 304). Women were included in the analysis if they underwent cesareans after regular contractions and any cervical dilation, if their membranes ruptured, or if they had the procedure performed when they were more than 4 cm dilated.

The primary outcome was composite infectious morbidity, a catchall that included surgical-site infection, maternal fever, endometritis, and wound complications within 30 days after cesarean delivery. The secondary outcomes were hospital readmission, visits to the emergency department, and treatment for neonatal sepsis.

The researchers observed no significant difference in the primary composite outcome between the two groups (11.7% vs. 11.7%, P = .98; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.5). “Vaginal cleansing appears to be unnecessary when preoperative antibiotics and skin antisepsis are performed,” Dr. Temming said.

Jennifer L. Lew, MD, an ob/gyn at Northwestern Medicine Kishwaukee Hospital in Dekalb, Illinois, said current practice regarding preparation for unscheduled cesarean surgery includes chlorhexidine on the abdomen and povidone-iodine for introducing a Foley catheter into the urethra.

“Many patients may already have a catheter in place due to labor and epidural, so they would not need” vaginal prep, Dr. Lew said. “Currently, the standard does not require doing a vaginal prep for any cesarean sections, those in labor or not.”

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vaginal cleansing showed no reduction in morbidity when performed before unscheduled cesarean deliveries, researchers reported at the 2022 Pregnancy Meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Several studies have evaluated vaginal cleansing prior to cesarean delivery, with mixed results. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends clinicians consider cleansing prior to unscheduled cesareans, but that advice appears not to be widely heeded.

The new findings, from what the researchers called the single largest study of vaginal cleansing prior to cesarean delivery in the United States, showed no difference in post-cesarean infections when the vagina was cleansed with povidone-iodine prior to unscheduled cesarean delivery.

“These findings do not support routine vaginal cleansing prior to unscheduled cesarean deliveries,” lead author Lorene Atkins Temming, MD, medical director of labor and delivery at Atrium Health Wake Forest School of Medicine, Charlotte, North Carolina, told this news organization. The research was conducted at and sponsored by Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, where Dr. Temming did her fellowship.

Dr. Temming’s group compared vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine in addition to routine abdominal cleansing to abdominal cleansing alone. Among the primary outcomes of the study was the effect of cleansing on post-cesarean infectious morbidity.

“There is a higher risk of infectious complications after cesarean delivery than other gynecologic surgeries,” Dr. Temming told this news organization. “While the reason for this isn’t entirely clear, it is thought to be because cesareans are often performed after a patient’s cervix is dilated. This dilation can allow normal bacteria that live in the vagina to ascend into the uterus and can increase the risk of infections.”

Patients undergoing cesarean delivery after labor were randomly assigned to undergo preoperative abdominal cleansing only (n = 304) or preoperative abdominal cleansing plus vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine (n = 304). Women were included in the analysis if they underwent cesareans after regular contractions and any cervical dilation, if their membranes ruptured, or if they had the procedure performed when they were more than 4 cm dilated.

The primary outcome was composite infectious morbidity, a catchall that included surgical-site infection, maternal fever, endometritis, and wound complications within 30 days after cesarean delivery. The secondary outcomes were hospital readmission, visits to the emergency department, and treatment for neonatal sepsis.

The researchers observed no significant difference in the primary composite outcome between the two groups (11.7% vs. 11.7%, P = .98; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.5). “Vaginal cleansing appears to be unnecessary when preoperative antibiotics and skin antisepsis are performed,” Dr. Temming said.

Jennifer L. Lew, MD, an ob/gyn at Northwestern Medicine Kishwaukee Hospital in Dekalb, Illinois, said current practice regarding preparation for unscheduled cesarean surgery includes chlorhexidine on the abdomen and povidone-iodine for introducing a Foley catheter into the urethra.

“Many patients may already have a catheter in place due to labor and epidural, so they would not need” vaginal prep, Dr. Lew said. “Currently, the standard does not require doing a vaginal prep for any cesarean sections, those in labor or not.”

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of marijuana during pregnancy was associated with symptoms of nausea and vomiting and with use of prescribed antiemetics, according to a study presented Feb. 3 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. It’s unclear, however, whether the association suggests that pregnant individuals are using marijuana in an attempt to treat their symptoms or whether the marijuana use is contributing to nausea and vomiting – or neither, Torri D. Metz, MD, of the University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, told attendees.

“Cannabis use has been increasing among pregnant individuals,” Dr. Metz said. “Reported reasons for use range from habit to perceived benefit for treatment of medical conditions, including nausea and vomiting.” She noted a previous study that found that dispensary employees in Colorado recommended cannabis to pregnant callers for treating of nausea despite no clinical evidence of it being an effective treatment.

”Anecdotally, I can say that many patients have told me that marijuana is the only thing that makes them feel better in the first trimester, but that could also be closely tied to marijuana alleviating their other symptoms, such as anxiety or sleep disturbances,” Ilina Pluym, MD, of the department of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. ”In the brain, marijuana acts to alleviate nausea and vomiting, and it has been used successfully to treat nausea [caused by] chemotherapy,” said Dr. Pluym, who attended the abstract presentation but was not involved in the research. “But in the gut, with long-term marijuana use, it can have the opposite effect, which is what is seen in cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome.”

Past research that has identified a link between cannabis use and nausea in pregnancy has typically relied on administrative data or self-reporting that are subject to recall and social desirability bias instead of a biomarker to assess cannabis use. This study therefore assessed marijuana use based on the presence of THC-COOH in urine samples and added the element of investigating antiemetic use in the population.

The study enrolled 10,038 nulliparous pregnant patients from eight U.S. centers from 2010 to 2013 who were an average 11 weeks pregnant. All participants completed the Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) tool at their first study visit and consented to testing of their previously frozen urine samples. The PUQE tool asks participants how often they have experienced nausea, vomiting, or retching or dry heaves within the previous 12 hours. A score of 1-6 is mild, a score of 7-12 is moderate, and a score of 13 or higher is severe.

Overall, 15.8% of participants reported moderate to severe nausea and 38.2% reported mild nausea. A total of 5.8% of participants tested positive for marijuana use based on THC levels in urine. Those with incrementally higher levels of THC, at least 500 ng/mg of creatinine, were 1.6 times more likely to report moderate to severe nausea after accounting for maternal age, body mass index, antiemetic drug use, and gestational age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; P < .001). An association did not exist, however, with any level of nausea overall. Those with higher creatinine levels were also 1.9 times more likely to report vomiting and 1.6 times more likely to report dry heaves or retching (P < .001).

About 1 in 10 participants (9.6%) overall had used a prescription antiemetic drug. Antiemetics were more common among those who had used marijuana: 18% of those with detectable THC had used antiemetics, compared with 12% of those without evidence of cannabis use (P < .001). However, most of those who used marijuana (83%) took only one antiemetic.

Among the study’s limitations were its lack of data on the reasons for cannabis use and the fact that it took place before widespread cannabidiol products became available, which meant most participants were using marijuana by smoking it.

Dr. Pluym also pointed out that the overall rate of marijuana use during pregnancy is likely higher today than it was in 2010-2013, before many states legalized its use. “But legalization shouldn’t equal normalization in pregnancy,” she added.

In addition, while the PUQE score assesses symptoms within the previous 12 hours, THC can remain in urine samples anywhere from several days to several weeks after marijuana is used.

”We’re unable to establish cause and effect,” Dr. Metz said, “but what we can conclude is that marijuana use was associated with early pregnancy nausea and vomiting.”

The findings emphasize the need for physicians to ask patients about their use of marijuana and seek to find out why they’re using it, Dr. Metz said. If it’s to treat nausea and vomiting of pregnancy, ob.gyns. should ensure patients are aware of the potential adverse effects of marijuana use in pregnancy and mention safe, effective alternatives. Research from the National Academy of Sciences has shown consistent evidence of decreased fetal growth with marijuana use in pregnancy, but there hasn’t been enough evidence to assess potential long-term neurological effects.

The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Metz and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

Use of marijuana during pregnancy was associated with symptoms of nausea and vomiting and with use of prescribed antiemetics, according to a study presented Feb. 3 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. It’s unclear, however, whether the association suggests that pregnant individuals are using marijuana in an attempt to treat their symptoms or whether the marijuana use is contributing to nausea and vomiting – or neither, Torri D. Metz, MD, of the University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, told attendees.

“Cannabis use has been increasing among pregnant individuals,” Dr. Metz said. “Reported reasons for use range from habit to perceived benefit for treatment of medical conditions, including nausea and vomiting.” She noted a previous study that found that dispensary employees in Colorado recommended cannabis to pregnant callers for treating of nausea despite no clinical evidence of it being an effective treatment.

”Anecdotally, I can say that many patients have told me that marijuana is the only thing that makes them feel better in the first trimester, but that could also be closely tied to marijuana alleviating their other symptoms, such as anxiety or sleep disturbances,” Ilina Pluym, MD, of the department of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. ”In the brain, marijuana acts to alleviate nausea and vomiting, and it has been used successfully to treat nausea [caused by] chemotherapy,” said Dr. Pluym, who attended the abstract presentation but was not involved in the research. “But in the gut, with long-term marijuana use, it can have the opposite effect, which is what is seen in cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome.”

Past research that has identified a link between cannabis use and nausea in pregnancy has typically relied on administrative data or self-reporting that are subject to recall and social desirability bias instead of a biomarker to assess cannabis use. This study therefore assessed marijuana use based on the presence of THC-COOH in urine samples and added the element of investigating antiemetic use in the population.

The study enrolled 10,038 nulliparous pregnant patients from eight U.S. centers from 2010 to 2013 who were an average 11 weeks pregnant. All participants completed the Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) tool at their first study visit and consented to testing of their previously frozen urine samples. The PUQE tool asks participants how often they have experienced nausea, vomiting, or retching or dry heaves within the previous 12 hours. A score of 1-6 is mild, a score of 7-12 is moderate, and a score of 13 or higher is severe.

Overall, 15.8% of participants reported moderate to severe nausea and 38.2% reported mild nausea. A total of 5.8% of participants tested positive for marijuana use based on THC levels in urine. Those with incrementally higher levels of THC, at least 500 ng/mg of creatinine, were 1.6 times more likely to report moderate to severe nausea after accounting for maternal age, body mass index, antiemetic drug use, and gestational age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; P < .001). An association did not exist, however, with any level of nausea overall. Those with higher creatinine levels were also 1.9 times more likely to report vomiting and 1.6 times more likely to report dry heaves or retching (P < .001).

About 1 in 10 participants (9.6%) overall had used a prescription antiemetic drug. Antiemetics were more common among those who had used marijuana: 18% of those with detectable THC had used antiemetics, compared with 12% of those without evidence of cannabis use (P < .001). However, most of those who used marijuana (83%) took only one antiemetic.

Among the study’s limitations were its lack of data on the reasons for cannabis use and the fact that it took place before widespread cannabidiol products became available, which meant most participants were using marijuana by smoking it.

Dr. Pluym also pointed out that the overall rate of marijuana use during pregnancy is likely higher today than it was in 2010-2013, before many states legalized its use. “But legalization shouldn’t equal normalization in pregnancy,” she added.

In addition, while the PUQE score assesses symptoms within the previous 12 hours, THC can remain in urine samples anywhere from several days to several weeks after marijuana is used.

”We’re unable to establish cause and effect,” Dr. Metz said, “but what we can conclude is that marijuana use was associated with early pregnancy nausea and vomiting.”

The findings emphasize the need for physicians to ask patients about their use of marijuana and seek to find out why they’re using it, Dr. Metz said. If it’s to treat nausea and vomiting of pregnancy, ob.gyns. should ensure patients are aware of the potential adverse effects of marijuana use in pregnancy and mention safe, effective alternatives. Research from the National Academy of Sciences has shown consistent evidence of decreased fetal growth with marijuana use in pregnancy, but there hasn’t been enough evidence to assess potential long-term neurological effects.

The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Metz and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

Use of marijuana during pregnancy was associated with symptoms of nausea and vomiting and with use of prescribed antiemetics, according to a study presented Feb. 3 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. It’s unclear, however, whether the association suggests that pregnant individuals are using marijuana in an attempt to treat their symptoms or whether the marijuana use is contributing to nausea and vomiting – or neither, Torri D. Metz, MD, of the University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, told attendees.

“Cannabis use has been increasing among pregnant individuals,” Dr. Metz said. “Reported reasons for use range from habit to perceived benefit for treatment of medical conditions, including nausea and vomiting.” She noted a previous study that found that dispensary employees in Colorado recommended cannabis to pregnant callers for treating of nausea despite no clinical evidence of it being an effective treatment.

”Anecdotally, I can say that many patients have told me that marijuana is the only thing that makes them feel better in the first trimester, but that could also be closely tied to marijuana alleviating their other symptoms, such as anxiety or sleep disturbances,” Ilina Pluym, MD, of the department of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. ”In the brain, marijuana acts to alleviate nausea and vomiting, and it has been used successfully to treat nausea [caused by] chemotherapy,” said Dr. Pluym, who attended the abstract presentation but was not involved in the research. “But in the gut, with long-term marijuana use, it can have the opposite effect, which is what is seen in cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome.”

Past research that has identified a link between cannabis use and nausea in pregnancy has typically relied on administrative data or self-reporting that are subject to recall and social desirability bias instead of a biomarker to assess cannabis use. This study therefore assessed marijuana use based on the presence of THC-COOH in urine samples and added the element of investigating antiemetic use in the population.

The study enrolled 10,038 nulliparous pregnant patients from eight U.S. centers from 2010 to 2013 who were an average 11 weeks pregnant. All participants completed the Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) tool at their first study visit and consented to testing of their previously frozen urine samples. The PUQE tool asks participants how often they have experienced nausea, vomiting, or retching or dry heaves within the previous 12 hours. A score of 1-6 is mild, a score of 7-12 is moderate, and a score of 13 or higher is severe.

Overall, 15.8% of participants reported moderate to severe nausea and 38.2% reported mild nausea. A total of 5.8% of participants tested positive for marijuana use based on THC levels in urine. Those with incrementally higher levels of THC, at least 500 ng/mg of creatinine, were 1.6 times more likely to report moderate to severe nausea after accounting for maternal age, body mass index, antiemetic drug use, and gestational age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; P < .001). An association did not exist, however, with any level of nausea overall. Those with higher creatinine levels were also 1.9 times more likely to report vomiting and 1.6 times more likely to report dry heaves or retching (P < .001).

About 1 in 10 participants (9.6%) overall had used a prescription antiemetic drug. Antiemetics were more common among those who had used marijuana: 18% of those with detectable THC had used antiemetics, compared with 12% of those without evidence of cannabis use (P < .001). However, most of those who used marijuana (83%) took only one antiemetic.

Among the study’s limitations were its lack of data on the reasons for cannabis use and the fact that it took place before widespread cannabidiol products became available, which meant most participants were using marijuana by smoking it.

Dr. Pluym also pointed out that the overall rate of marijuana use during pregnancy is likely higher today than it was in 2010-2013, before many states legalized its use. “But legalization shouldn’t equal normalization in pregnancy,” she added.

In addition, while the PUQE score assesses symptoms within the previous 12 hours, THC can remain in urine samples anywhere from several days to several weeks after marijuana is used.

”We’re unable to establish cause and effect,” Dr. Metz said, “but what we can conclude is that marijuana use was associated with early pregnancy nausea and vomiting.”

The findings emphasize the need for physicians to ask patients about their use of marijuana and seek to find out why they’re using it, Dr. Metz said. If it’s to treat nausea and vomiting of pregnancy, ob.gyns. should ensure patients are aware of the potential adverse effects of marijuana use in pregnancy and mention safe, effective alternatives. Research from the National Academy of Sciences has shown consistent evidence of decreased fetal growth with marijuana use in pregnancy, but there hasn’t been enough evidence to assess potential long-term neurological effects.

The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Metz and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

Although the Food and Drug Administration approved isotretinoin for severe recalcitrant acne 40 years ago, many questions about its optimal dosing remain to this day, according to Diane M. Thiboutot, MD.

These include, what is the ideal daily dose of isotretinoin? What is the ideal cumulative dose of isotretinoin to minimize relapse of acne? What is the ideal duration of isotretinoin therapy? How do you define relapse?

“Initially, it was recommended as 1–mg/kg per day dosing,” Dr. Thiboutot, professor of dermatology at Penn State University, Hershey, said during the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. “As time went on and we became familiar with flares that some patients can have on that dose, it was recommended to start treatment at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg per day. Then there were trends for low dosing, intermittent dosing, and some of the more recent medical literature is talking about high dosing.”
 

Clinical studies

A multicenter study of 150 patients published in 1984 found that rates of relapse (retreatment needed) were 42% of patients of patients treated with 0.1 mg/kg daily, 20% in patients treated with 0.5 mg/kg daily, and 10% in patients treated with 1.0 mg/kg daily.

In a later study, researchers who followed 299 patients for 5 years post isotretinoin treatment found that there were more relapses in the 0.5-mg/kg group versus those treated with 1.0 mg/kg. Factors that contributed to the need for more treatment courses included lower-dose regimens (0.1 mg/kg and 0.5 mg/kg), having severe acne, being a female over the age of 25 at the onset of therapy, and having a prolonged history of acne.

More recently, investigators who conducted a single-center study of 1,453 patients treated with isotretinoin defined relapse as the need for a second course of isotretinoin. “They found that neither daily nor cumulative dosages influenced relapse of acne vulgaris in patients treated with varying doses of isotretinoin as long as treatment was continued for 2 or more months after the acne had completely resolved,” said Dr. Thiboutot, a past president of the American Acne and Rosacea Society.

“The current evidence underpinning the 120-150 mg/kg cumulative threshold–dosing regimen is equivocal and is based on two low-grade studies,” she noted. “Cumulative doses required for clearance appear lower for acne of mild to moderate severity and higher for more severe acne. Future investigations should use clinically relevant endpoints as end of treatment criteria and define treatment success in acne accurately.”

Other studies have looked at whether higher doses of isotretinoin could reduce treatment failures in patients with acne, Dr. Thiboutot said. In a retrospective chart review of 102 patients with acne who had been treated with isotretinoin for at least 4 consecutive months and followed for over a year, 45.1% required further treatment and 15.7% received a second course of isotretinoin. Cumulative dose (mg/kg), follow-up period, duration of treatment, and daily dose during the last month of treatment were not significantly different between those who relapsed and those who did not relapse.

However, “while the cumulative dose of isotretinoin did not significantly impact acne relapse, patients who received a higher cumulative dose were less likely to require a second course of treatment,” the authors wrote, adding that “female patients had a higher risk of needing retrial regardless of their cumulative dose.” They commented that “prescribing a higher dose per weight may result in less severe acne recurrences and the need for further isotretinoin therapy.”

Another study evaluated 116 patients who were treated to clearance with dosing at the discretion of the provider and defined relapse as subsequent treatment with an oral or topical agent. In the lower-dose treatment (less than 220 mg/kg; mean of 170 mg/kg) group, the relapse rate was 47.4%, compared with 26.9% in the higher-dose (greater than 220 mg/kg) group (P = .03). Cheilitis and xerosis during treatment was reported in nearly all patients in both treatment groups, but retinoid dermatitis was significantly more common among those in the higher-dose group (53.8% vs. 31.6%; P = .02). There were no significant differences in other adverse events between the two groups.

According to Dr. Thiboutot, variables to consider in selection of a daily dose include the presence of intense inflammation, cysts, nodules, potential difference in side-effect profiles with ethnicity, and an individual’s degree of side effects and their level of comfort. “What are some of the concerns with higher doses? Those of us who have treated a lot of acne patients have had the unfortunate occurrence where you start someone on isotretinoin and their acne explodes, as do their cysts and nodules. Once that happens it’s a bad situation and it takes you a while to get past it.”
 

Acne fulminans

Dr. Thiboutot was part of a panel of experts who assembled guidelines on the classification, management, and prevention of acne fulminans, published in 2017. “Acne fulminans can be induced by isotretinoin or it can occur on its own. If you have someone who has a lot of inflammation, a lot of cysts and nodules, it’s probably best to start them on a lower dose with or without prednisone,” she said.

Age at treatment is another variable that can affect the duration of response to isotretinoin. “If the patient is very young when they need isotretinoin, it’s highly likely that they will need it again,” Dr. Thiboutot said. “Also, adult females often need a repeat dose of isotretinoin. The cumulative dose is important, and the presence of truncal acne is a factor affecting duration of response. Truncal acne takes longer to clear, and it oftentimes needs a longer treatment course.”

Data from the iPledge database indicate that 37% of 10- to 11-year-olds needed a repeat course of isotretinoin, “and as you get older, the need for retreatment is less,” she said.

High-dose versus low-dose isotretinoin

A slow, low-dose approach to the use of isotretinoin in practice can minimize side effects and cystic flares, according to Dr. Thiboutot. “The cons are that you could have a longer treatment duration, you might need more patient visits, and it creates more prolonged drug exposure in patients who can become pregnant,” she said.

“The pros of a high-dose strategy include a shorter treatment duration and potential costs savings. The cons are that there is an increased risk of side effects and a risk of cystic flare. It seems that the general agreement is to treat until clearance and then treat for another 2 months. A clear definition of acne relapse is needed as well as prospective studies to optimize dosing.”

Dr. Thiboutot disclosed that she is a consultant Galderma and Novartis. She has also performed clinical trials for Galderma, Cassiopea, and Foamix.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Isotretinoin has been around for a long time – 40-plus years, to be exact. Despite this cumulative experience, ideal dosing and duration remain uncertain. Many providers have evolved from a “one size fits all” approach (for example, 1 mg/kg of body weight per day for 4-6 months) to a more tailored and nuanced strategy. Dr. Thiboutot validates the need to individualize therapy and helps identify patients at higher risk for relapse. Younger patients are at greater risk for repeat courses of isotretinoin – Dr. Thiboutot cites a study showing 37% of 10- to 11-year-olds required a second course of isotretinoin. This could simply be a proxy for severity, which also augurs a more protracted course. Adult women and those with truncal acne also trend toward longer courses. Knowing these risk factors will help practitioners counsel proper expectations, tailor treatment courses, and thread the always challenging isotretinoin needle: Should one dose “low and slow” and court a longer risk window, or higher and faster, sometimes leading to a dryer disaster?

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/10/22.

Although the Food and Drug Administration approved isotretinoin for severe recalcitrant acne 40 years ago, many questions about its optimal dosing remain to this day, according to Diane M. Thiboutot, MD.

These include, what is the ideal daily dose of isotretinoin? What is the ideal cumulative dose of isotretinoin to minimize relapse of acne? What is the ideal duration of isotretinoin therapy? How do you define relapse?

“Initially, it was recommended as 1–mg/kg per day dosing,” Dr. Thiboutot, professor of dermatology at Penn State University, Hershey, said during the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. “As time went on and we became familiar with flares that some patients can have on that dose, it was recommended to start treatment at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg per day. Then there were trends for low dosing, intermittent dosing, and some of the more recent medical literature is talking about high dosing.”
 

Clinical studies

A multicenter study of 150 patients published in 1984 found that rates of relapse (retreatment needed) were 42% of patients of patients treated with 0.1 mg/kg daily, 20% in patients treated with 0.5 mg/kg daily, and 10% in patients treated with 1.0 mg/kg daily.

In a later study, researchers who followed 299 patients for 5 years post isotretinoin treatment found that there were more relapses in the 0.5-mg/kg group versus those treated with 1.0 mg/kg. Factors that contributed to the need for more treatment courses included lower-dose regimens (0.1 mg/kg and 0.5 mg/kg), having severe acne, being a female over the age of 25 at the onset of therapy, and having a prolonged history of acne.

More recently, investigators who conducted a single-center study of 1,453 patients treated with isotretinoin defined relapse as the need for a second course of isotretinoin. “They found that neither daily nor cumulative dosages influenced relapse of acne vulgaris in patients treated with varying doses of isotretinoin as long as treatment was continued for 2 or more months after the acne had completely resolved,” said Dr. Thiboutot, a past president of the American Acne and Rosacea Society.

“The current evidence underpinning the 120-150 mg/kg cumulative threshold–dosing regimen is equivocal and is based on two low-grade studies,” she noted. “Cumulative doses required for clearance appear lower for acne of mild to moderate severity and higher for more severe acne. Future investigations should use clinically relevant endpoints as end of treatment criteria and define treatment success in acne accurately.”

Other studies have looked at whether higher doses of isotretinoin could reduce treatment failures in patients with acne, Dr. Thiboutot said. In a retrospective chart review of 102 patients with acne who had been treated with isotretinoin for at least 4 consecutive months and followed for over a year, 45.1% required further treatment and 15.7% received a second course of isotretinoin. Cumulative dose (mg/kg), follow-up period, duration of treatment, and daily dose during the last month of treatment were not significantly different between those who relapsed and those who did not relapse.

However, “while the cumulative dose of isotretinoin did not significantly impact acne relapse, patients who received a higher cumulative dose were less likely to require a second course of treatment,” the authors wrote, adding that “female patients had a higher risk of needing retrial regardless of their cumulative dose.” They commented that “prescribing a higher dose per weight may result in less severe acne recurrences and the need for further isotretinoin therapy.”

Another study evaluated 116 patients who were treated to clearance with dosing at the discretion of the provider and defined relapse as subsequent treatment with an oral or topical agent. In the lower-dose treatment (less than 220 mg/kg; mean of 170 mg/kg) group, the relapse rate was 47.4%, compared with 26.9% in the higher-dose (greater than 220 mg/kg) group (P = .03). Cheilitis and xerosis during treatment was reported in nearly all patients in both treatment groups, but retinoid dermatitis was significantly more common among those in the higher-dose group (53.8% vs. 31.6%; P = .02). There were no significant differences in other adverse events between the two groups.

According to Dr. Thiboutot, variables to consider in selection of a daily dose include the presence of intense inflammation, cysts, nodules, potential difference in side-effect profiles with ethnicity, and an individual’s degree of side effects and their level of comfort. “What are some of the concerns with higher doses? Those of us who have treated a lot of acne patients have had the unfortunate occurrence where you start someone on isotretinoin and their acne explodes, as do their cysts and nodules. Once that happens it’s a bad situation and it takes you a while to get past it.”
 

Acne fulminans

Dr. Thiboutot was part of a panel of experts who assembled guidelines on the classification, management, and prevention of acne fulminans, published in 2017. “Acne fulminans can be induced by isotretinoin or it can occur on its own. If you have someone who has a lot of inflammation, a lot of cysts and nodules, it’s probably best to start them on a lower dose with or without prednisone,” she said.

Age at treatment is another variable that can affect the duration of response to isotretinoin. “If the patient is very young when they need isotretinoin, it’s highly likely that they will need it again,” Dr. Thiboutot said. “Also, adult females often need a repeat dose of isotretinoin. The cumulative dose is important, and the presence of truncal acne is a factor affecting duration of response. Truncal acne takes longer to clear, and it oftentimes needs a longer treatment course.”

Data from the iPledge database indicate that 37% of 10- to 11-year-olds needed a repeat course of isotretinoin, “and as you get older, the need for retreatment is less,” she said.

High-dose versus low-dose isotretinoin

A slow, low-dose approach to the use of isotretinoin in practice can minimize side effects and cystic flares, according to Dr. Thiboutot. “The cons are that you could have a longer treatment duration, you might need more patient visits, and it creates more prolonged drug exposure in patients who can become pregnant,” she said.

“The pros of a high-dose strategy include a shorter treatment duration and potential costs savings. The cons are that there is an increased risk of side effects and a risk of cystic flare. It seems that the general agreement is to treat until clearance and then treat for another 2 months. A clear definition of acne relapse is needed as well as prospective studies to optimize dosing.”

Dr. Thiboutot disclosed that she is a consultant Galderma and Novartis. She has also performed clinical trials for Galderma, Cassiopea, and Foamix.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Isotretinoin has been around for a long time – 40-plus years, to be exact. Despite this cumulative experience, ideal dosing and duration remain uncertain. Many providers have evolved from a “one size fits all” approach (for example, 1 mg/kg of body weight per day for 4-6 months) to a more tailored and nuanced strategy. Dr. Thiboutot validates the need to individualize therapy and helps identify patients at higher risk for relapse. Younger patients are at greater risk for repeat courses of isotretinoin – Dr. Thiboutot cites a study showing 37% of 10- to 11-year-olds required a second course of isotretinoin. This could simply be a proxy for severity, which also augurs a more protracted course. Adult women and those with truncal acne also trend toward longer courses. Knowing these risk factors will help practitioners counsel proper expectations, tailor treatment courses, and thread the always challenging isotretinoin needle: Should one dose “low and slow” and court a longer risk window, or higher and faster, sometimes leading to a dryer disaster?

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/10/22.

Although the Food and Drug Administration approved isotretinoin for severe recalcitrant acne 40 years ago, many questions about its optimal dosing remain to this day, according to Diane M. Thiboutot, MD.

These include, what is the ideal daily dose of isotretinoin? What is the ideal cumulative dose of isotretinoin to minimize relapse of acne? What is the ideal duration of isotretinoin therapy? How do you define relapse?

“Initially, it was recommended as 1–mg/kg per day dosing,” Dr. Thiboutot, professor of dermatology at Penn State University, Hershey, said during the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. “As time went on and we became familiar with flares that some patients can have on that dose, it was recommended to start treatment at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg per day. Then there were trends for low dosing, intermittent dosing, and some of the more recent medical literature is talking about high dosing.”
 

Clinical studies

A multicenter study of 150 patients published in 1984 found that rates of relapse (retreatment needed) were 42% of patients of patients treated with 0.1 mg/kg daily, 20% in patients treated with 0.5 mg/kg daily, and 10% in patients treated with 1.0 mg/kg daily.

In a later study, researchers who followed 299 patients for 5 years post isotretinoin treatment found that there were more relapses in the 0.5-mg/kg group versus those treated with 1.0 mg/kg. Factors that contributed to the need for more treatment courses included lower-dose regimens (0.1 mg/kg and 0.5 mg/kg), having severe acne, being a female over the age of 25 at the onset of therapy, and having a prolonged history of acne.

More recently, investigators who conducted a single-center study of 1,453 patients treated with isotretinoin defined relapse as the need for a second course of isotretinoin. “They found that neither daily nor cumulative dosages influenced relapse of acne vulgaris in patients treated with varying doses of isotretinoin as long as treatment was continued for 2 or more months after the acne had completely resolved,” said Dr. Thiboutot, a past president of the American Acne and Rosacea Society.

“The current evidence underpinning the 120-150 mg/kg cumulative threshold–dosing regimen is equivocal and is based on two low-grade studies,” she noted. “Cumulative doses required for clearance appear lower for acne of mild to moderate severity and higher for more severe acne. Future investigations should use clinically relevant endpoints as end of treatment criteria and define treatment success in acne accurately.”

Other studies have looked at whether higher doses of isotretinoin could reduce treatment failures in patients with acne, Dr. Thiboutot said. In a retrospective chart review of 102 patients with acne who had been treated with isotretinoin for at least 4 consecutive months and followed for over a year, 45.1% required further treatment and 15.7% received a second course of isotretinoin. Cumulative dose (mg/kg), follow-up period, duration of treatment, and daily dose during the last month of treatment were not significantly different between those who relapsed and those who did not relapse.

However, “while the cumulative dose of isotretinoin did not significantly impact acne relapse, patients who received a higher cumulative dose were less likely to require a second course of treatment,” the authors wrote, adding that “female patients had a higher risk of needing retrial regardless of their cumulative dose.” They commented that “prescribing a higher dose per weight may result in less severe acne recurrences and the need for further isotretinoin therapy.”

Another study evaluated 116 patients who were treated to clearance with dosing at the discretion of the provider and defined relapse as subsequent treatment with an oral or topical agent. In the lower-dose treatment (less than 220 mg/kg; mean of 170 mg/kg) group, the relapse rate was 47.4%, compared with 26.9% in the higher-dose (greater than 220 mg/kg) group (P = .03). Cheilitis and xerosis during treatment was reported in nearly all patients in both treatment groups, but retinoid dermatitis was significantly more common among those in the higher-dose group (53.8% vs. 31.6%; P = .02). There were no significant differences in other adverse events between the two groups.

According to Dr. Thiboutot, variables to consider in selection of a daily dose include the presence of intense inflammation, cysts, nodules, potential difference in side-effect profiles with ethnicity, and an individual’s degree of side effects and their level of comfort. “What are some of the concerns with higher doses? Those of us who have treated a lot of acne patients have had the unfortunate occurrence where you start someone on isotretinoin and their acne explodes, as do their cysts and nodules. Once that happens it’s a bad situation and it takes you a while to get past it.”
 

Acne fulminans

Dr. Thiboutot was part of a panel of experts who assembled guidelines on the classification, management, and prevention of acne fulminans, published in 2017. “Acne fulminans can be induced by isotretinoin or it can occur on its own. If you have someone who has a lot of inflammation, a lot of cysts and nodules, it’s probably best to start them on a lower dose with or without prednisone,” she said.

Age at treatment is another variable that can affect the duration of response to isotretinoin. “If the patient is very young when they need isotretinoin, it’s highly likely that they will need it again,” Dr. Thiboutot said. “Also, adult females often need a repeat dose of isotretinoin. The cumulative dose is important, and the presence of truncal acne is a factor affecting duration of response. Truncal acne takes longer to clear, and it oftentimes needs a longer treatment course.”

Data from the iPledge database indicate that 37% of 10- to 11-year-olds needed a repeat course of isotretinoin, “and as you get older, the need for retreatment is less,” she said.

High-dose versus low-dose isotretinoin

A slow, low-dose approach to the use of isotretinoin in practice can minimize side effects and cystic flares, according to Dr. Thiboutot. “The cons are that you could have a longer treatment duration, you might need more patient visits, and it creates more prolonged drug exposure in patients who can become pregnant,” she said.

“The pros of a high-dose strategy include a shorter treatment duration and potential costs savings. The cons are that there is an increased risk of side effects and a risk of cystic flare. It seems that the general agreement is to treat until clearance and then treat for another 2 months. A clear definition of acne relapse is needed as well as prospective studies to optimize dosing.”

Dr. Thiboutot disclosed that she is a consultant Galderma and Novartis. She has also performed clinical trials for Galderma, Cassiopea, and Foamix.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Isotretinoin has been around for a long time – 40-plus years, to be exact. Despite this cumulative experience, ideal dosing and duration remain uncertain. Many providers have evolved from a “one size fits all” approach (for example, 1 mg/kg of body weight per day for 4-6 months) to a more tailored and nuanced strategy. Dr. Thiboutot validates the need to individualize therapy and helps identify patients at higher risk for relapse. Younger patients are at greater risk for repeat courses of isotretinoin – Dr. Thiboutot cites a study showing 37% of 10- to 11-year-olds required a second course of isotretinoin. This could simply be a proxy for severity, which also augurs a more protracted course. Adult women and those with truncal acne also trend toward longer courses. Knowing these risk factors will help practitioners counsel proper expectations, tailor treatment courses, and thread the always challenging isotretinoin needle: Should one dose “low and slow” and court a longer risk window, or higher and faster, sometimes leading to a dryer disaster?

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/10/22.

In the country with one of the highest rates of preterm birth in the world, these early deliveries dropped by 24% with a simple intervention: chewing gum with xylitol during pregnancy. The decrease in preterm births was linked to improvement in oral health, according to research presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Although the findings, from a randomized controlled trial of women in Malawi, barely reached statistical significance, the researchers also documented a reduction in periodontitis (gum disease) that appears to correlate with the reduction in early deliveries, according to Kjersti Aagaard, MD, PhD, of Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston.

“For a while, we have known about the association with poor oral health and preterm birth but I am not aware of a study of this magnitude suggesting a simple and effective treatment option,” said Ilina Pluym, MD, an assistant professor in maternal fetal medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation. Dr. Pluym called the new data “compelling” and said the study “adds to our possible strategies to treat a condition that causes a significant burden of disease worldwide.” The findings must be replicated, ideally in countries with lower rates of preterm birth and periodontal disease to see if the effect is similar, before broadly implementing this cheap and simple intervention.

Preterm birth is a leading cause of infant mortality and a major underlying cause of health problems in children under 5 worldwide. As many as 42% of children born preterm have a health condition related to their prematurity or do not survive childhood.

About one in five babies in Malawi are born between 26 and 37 weeks, about double the U.S. rate of 10.8% preterm births, which in this country is considered births that occur between 23 and 37 weeks’ gestation. Researchers also chose Malawi for the trial because residents there see preterm birth as a widespread problem that must be addressed, Dr. Aagaard said.

Multiple previous studies have found a link between periodontal disease and deliveries that are preterm or low birth weight, Dr. Aagaard told attendees. However, 11 randomized controlled trials that involved treating periodontal disease did not reduce preterm birth despite improving periodontitis and oral health.

Dr. Aagaard’s team decided to test the effectiveness of xylitol – a natural prebiotic found in fruits, vegetables, and bran – because harmful oral bacteria cannot metabolize the substance, and regular use of xylitol reduces the number of harmful mouth bacteria while increasing the number of good microbes in the mouth. In addition, a study in 2006 found that children up to 4 years old had fewer cavities and ear infections when their mothers chewed gum containing xylitol and other compounds. Dr. Aagaard noted that gums without xylitol do not appear to produce the same improvements in oral health.

Before beginning the trial, Dr. Aagaard’s group spent 3 years doing a “run-in” study to ensure a larger, longer-term trial in Malawi was feasible. That initial study found a reduction in tooth decay and periodontal inflammation with use of xylitol. The researchers also learned that participants preferred gum over lozenges or lollipops. Nearly all the participants (92%) chewed the gum twice daily.

Among 10,069 women who enrolled in the trial, 96% remained in it until the end. Of the initial total, 4,029 participants underwent an oral health assessment at the start of the study, and 920 had a follow-up oral health assessment.

Of the 4,349 women who chewed xylitol gum, 12.6% gave birth before 37 weeks, compared with 16.5% preterm births among the 5,321 women in the control group – a 24% reduction (P = .045). The 16.5% rate among women not chewing gum was still lower than the national rate of 19.6%, possibly related to the education the participants received, according to the researchers.

No statistically significant reduction occurred for births at less than 34 weeks, but the reduction in late preterm births – babies born between 34 and 37 weeks – was also borderline in statistical significance (P = .049). Only 9.9% of women chewing xylitol gum had a late preterm birth compared to 13.5% of women who only received health education.

The researchers estimated it would take 26 pregnant women chewing xylitol gum to prevent one preterm birth. At a cost of $24-$29 per pregnancy for the gum, preventing each preterm birth in a community would cost $623-$754.

The researchers also observed a 30% reduction in newborns weighing less than 2,500 g (5.5 pounds), with 8.9% of low-birth-weight babies born to moms chewing gum and 12.9% of low-birth-weight babies born to those not provided gum (P = .046). They attributed this reduction in low birth weight to the lower proportion of late preterm births. The groups showed no significant differences in stillbirths or newborn deaths.

The researchers did, however, find a significant reduction in periodontitis among the women who chewed xylitol gum who came for follow-up dental visits. The prevalence of periodontal disease dropped from 31% to 27% in those not chewing gum but from 31% to 21% in gum chewers (P = .04).

“This cannot be attributed to overall oral health, as dental caries composite scores did not significantly differ while periodontitis measures did,” Dr. Aagaard said.

One limitation of the trial is that it was randomized by health centers instead by individual women, although the researchers tried to account for differences that might exist between the populations going to different facilities. Nor did the researchers assess how frequently the participants chewed gum – although the fact that the gum-chewing group had better oral health suggests they appear to have done so regularly.

Whether recommending xylitol chewing gum to pregnant women in other countries would affect rates of preterm birth is unclear. The ideal population for an intervention like this is one where the population has a high rate of periodontal disease or other preterm birth risk factors, Dr. Pluym said.

”Preterm birth is multifactorial,” she said. “There are often multiple risk factors and causes to the complex pathophysiological process and a quick fix is not the solution for everyone.”

The study was funded by the Thrasher Research Fund. Dr. Aagaard and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

This story was updated on Feb. 4, 2022.

In the country with one of the highest rates of preterm birth in the world, these early deliveries dropped by 24% with a simple intervention: chewing gum with xylitol during pregnancy. The decrease in preterm births was linked to improvement in oral health, according to research presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Although the findings, from a randomized controlled trial of women in Malawi, barely reached statistical significance, the researchers also documented a reduction in periodontitis (gum disease) that appears to correlate with the reduction in early deliveries, according to Kjersti Aagaard, MD, PhD, of Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston.

“For a while, we have known about the association with poor oral health and preterm birth but I am not aware of a study of this magnitude suggesting a simple and effective treatment option,” said Ilina Pluym, MD, an assistant professor in maternal fetal medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation. Dr. Pluym called the new data “compelling” and said the study “adds to our possible strategies to treat a condition that causes a significant burden of disease worldwide.” The findings must be replicated, ideally in countries with lower rates of preterm birth and periodontal disease to see if the effect is similar, before broadly implementing this cheap and simple intervention.

Preterm birth is a leading cause of infant mortality and a major underlying cause of health problems in children under 5 worldwide. As many as 42% of children born preterm have a health condition related to their prematurity or do not survive childhood.

About one in five babies in Malawi are born between 26 and 37 weeks, about double the U.S. rate of 10.8% preterm births, which in this country is considered births that occur between 23 and 37 weeks’ gestation. Researchers also chose Malawi for the trial because residents there see preterm birth as a widespread problem that must be addressed, Dr. Aagaard said.

Multiple previous studies have found a link between periodontal disease and deliveries that are preterm or low birth weight, Dr. Aagaard told attendees. However, 11 randomized controlled trials that involved treating periodontal disease did not reduce preterm birth despite improving periodontitis and oral health.

Dr. Aagaard’s team decided to test the effectiveness of xylitol – a natural prebiotic found in fruits, vegetables, and bran – because harmful oral bacteria cannot metabolize the substance, and regular use of xylitol reduces the number of harmful mouth bacteria while increasing the number of good microbes in the mouth. In addition, a study in 2006 found that children up to 4 years old had fewer cavities and ear infections when their mothers chewed gum containing xylitol and other compounds. Dr. Aagaard noted that gums without xylitol do not appear to produce the same improvements in oral health.

Before beginning the trial, Dr. Aagaard’s group spent 3 years doing a “run-in” study to ensure a larger, longer-term trial in Malawi was feasible. That initial study found a reduction in tooth decay and periodontal inflammation with use of xylitol. The researchers also learned that participants preferred gum over lozenges or lollipops. Nearly all the participants (92%) chewed the gum twice daily.

Among 10,069 women who enrolled in the trial, 96% remained in it until the end. Of the initial total, 4,029 participants underwent an oral health assessment at the start of the study, and 920 had a follow-up oral health assessment.

Of the 4,349 women who chewed xylitol gum, 12.6% gave birth before 37 weeks, compared with 16.5% preterm births among the 5,321 women in the control group – a 24% reduction (P = .045). The 16.5% rate among women not chewing gum was still lower than the national rate of 19.6%, possibly related to the education the participants received, according to the researchers.

No statistically significant reduction occurred for births at less than 34 weeks, but the reduction in late preterm births – babies born between 34 and 37 weeks – was also borderline in statistical significance (P = .049). Only 9.9% of women chewing xylitol gum had a late preterm birth compared to 13.5% of women who only received health education.

The researchers estimated it would take 26 pregnant women chewing xylitol gum to prevent one preterm birth. At a cost of $24-$29 per pregnancy for the gum, preventing each preterm birth in a community would cost $623-$754.

The researchers also observed a 30% reduction in newborns weighing less than 2,500 g (5.5 pounds), with 8.9% of low-birth-weight babies born to moms chewing gum and 12.9% of low-birth-weight babies born to those not provided gum (P = .046). They attributed this reduction in low birth weight to the lower proportion of late preterm births. The groups showed no significant differences in stillbirths or newborn deaths.

The researchers did, however, find a significant reduction in periodontitis among the women who chewed xylitol gum who came for follow-up dental visits. The prevalence of periodontal disease dropped from 31% to 27% in those not chewing gum but from 31% to 21% in gum chewers (P = .04).

“This cannot be attributed to overall oral health, as dental caries composite scores did not significantly differ while periodontitis measures did,” Dr. Aagaard said.

One limitation of the trial is that it was randomized by health centers instead by individual women, although the researchers tried to account for differences that might exist between the populations going to different facilities. Nor did the researchers assess how frequently the participants chewed gum – although the fact that the gum-chewing group had better oral health suggests they appear to have done so regularly.

Whether recommending xylitol chewing gum to pregnant women in other countries would affect rates of preterm birth is unclear. The ideal population for an intervention like this is one where the population has a high rate of periodontal disease or other preterm birth risk factors, Dr. Pluym said.

”Preterm birth is multifactorial,” she said. “There are often multiple risk factors and causes to the complex pathophysiological process and a quick fix is not the solution for everyone.”

The study was funded by the Thrasher Research Fund. Dr. Aagaard and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

This story was updated on Feb. 4, 2022.

In the country with one of the highest rates of preterm birth in the world, these early deliveries dropped by 24% with a simple intervention: chewing gum with xylitol during pregnancy. The decrease in preterm births was linked to improvement in oral health, according to research presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Although the findings, from a randomized controlled trial of women in Malawi, barely reached statistical significance, the researchers also documented a reduction in periodontitis (gum disease) that appears to correlate with the reduction in early deliveries, according to Kjersti Aagaard, MD, PhD, of Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston.

“For a while, we have known about the association with poor oral health and preterm birth but I am not aware of a study of this magnitude suggesting a simple and effective treatment option,” said Ilina Pluym, MD, an assistant professor in maternal fetal medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation. Dr. Pluym called the new data “compelling” and said the study “adds to our possible strategies to treat a condition that causes a significant burden of disease worldwide.” The findings must be replicated, ideally in countries with lower rates of preterm birth and periodontal disease to see if the effect is similar, before broadly implementing this cheap and simple intervention.

Preterm birth is a leading cause of infant mortality and a major underlying cause of health problems in children under 5 worldwide. As many as 42% of children born preterm have a health condition related to their prematurity or do not survive childhood.

About one in five babies in Malawi are born between 26 and 37 weeks, about double the U.S. rate of 10.8% preterm births, which in this country is considered births that occur between 23 and 37 weeks’ gestation. Researchers also chose Malawi for the trial because residents there see preterm birth as a widespread problem that must be addressed, Dr. Aagaard said.

Multiple previous studies have found a link between periodontal disease and deliveries that are preterm or low birth weight, Dr. Aagaard told attendees. However, 11 randomized controlled trials that involved treating periodontal disease did not reduce preterm birth despite improving periodontitis and oral health.

Dr. Aagaard’s team decided to test the effectiveness of xylitol – a natural prebiotic found in fruits, vegetables, and bran – because harmful oral bacteria cannot metabolize the substance, and regular use of xylitol reduces the number of harmful mouth bacteria while increasing the number of good microbes in the mouth. In addition, a study in 2006 found that children up to 4 years old had fewer cavities and ear infections when their mothers chewed gum containing xylitol and other compounds. Dr. Aagaard noted that gums without xylitol do not appear to produce the same improvements in oral health.

Before beginning the trial, Dr. Aagaard’s group spent 3 years doing a “run-in” study to ensure a larger, longer-term trial in Malawi was feasible. That initial study found a reduction in tooth decay and periodontal inflammation with use of xylitol. The researchers also learned that participants preferred gum over lozenges or lollipops. Nearly all the participants (92%) chewed the gum twice daily.

Among 10,069 women who enrolled in the trial, 96% remained in it until the end. Of the initial total, 4,029 participants underwent an oral health assessment at the start of the study, and 920 had a follow-up oral health assessment.

Of the 4,349 women who chewed xylitol gum, 12.6% gave birth before 37 weeks, compared with 16.5% preterm births among the 5,321 women in the control group – a 24% reduction (P = .045). The 16.5% rate among women not chewing gum was still lower than the national rate of 19.6%, possibly related to the education the participants received, according to the researchers.

No statistically significant reduction occurred for births at less than 34 weeks, but the reduction in late preterm births – babies born between 34 and 37 weeks – was also borderline in statistical significance (P = .049). Only 9.9% of women chewing xylitol gum had a late preterm birth compared to 13.5% of women who only received health education.

The researchers estimated it would take 26 pregnant women chewing xylitol gum to prevent one preterm birth. At a cost of $24-$29 per pregnancy for the gum, preventing each preterm birth in a community would cost $623-$754.

The researchers also observed a 30% reduction in newborns weighing less than 2,500 g (5.5 pounds), with 8.9% of low-birth-weight babies born to moms chewing gum and 12.9% of low-birth-weight babies born to those not provided gum (P = .046). They attributed this reduction in low birth weight to the lower proportion of late preterm births. The groups showed no significant differences in stillbirths or newborn deaths.

The researchers did, however, find a significant reduction in periodontitis among the women who chewed xylitol gum who came for follow-up dental visits. The prevalence of periodontal disease dropped from 31% to 27% in those not chewing gum but from 31% to 21% in gum chewers (P = .04).

“This cannot be attributed to overall oral health, as dental caries composite scores did not significantly differ while periodontitis measures did,” Dr. Aagaard said.

One limitation of the trial is that it was randomized by health centers instead by individual women, although the researchers tried to account for differences that might exist between the populations going to different facilities. Nor did the researchers assess how frequently the participants chewed gum – although the fact that the gum-chewing group had better oral health suggests they appear to have done so regularly.

Whether recommending xylitol chewing gum to pregnant women in other countries would affect rates of preterm birth is unclear. The ideal population for an intervention like this is one where the population has a high rate of periodontal disease or other preterm birth risk factors, Dr. Pluym said.

”Preterm birth is multifactorial,” she said. “There are often multiple risk factors and causes to the complex pathophysiological process and a quick fix is not the solution for everyone.”

The study was funded by the Thrasher Research Fund. Dr. Aagaard and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

This story was updated on Feb. 4, 2022.

Problems with eating and nutrition are common among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and other gastrointestinal disorders, but clinicians who treat them should be careful not to automatically assume that patients have eating disorders, according to a psychologist who specializes in the psychological and social aspects of chronic digestive diseases.

On the other hand, clinicians must also be aware of the possibility that patients could have a recently identified syndrome cluster called avoidant restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID), said Tiffany Taft, PsyD, a research associate professor of medicine (gastroenterology and hepatology), medical social sciences, and psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University, Chicago. In a recent study, she and her colleagues defined ARFID as “failure to meet one’s nutritional needs owing to sensory hypersensitivity, lack of interest in eating, or fear of aversive consequences from eating, and is associated with negative medical and psychosocial outcomes.”

gerenme/ThinkStock

ARFID “is a hot topic that we really don’t understand,” she said in an online presentation at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership  of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Nutritional deficiencies

Nutritional deficiencies are common among patients with IBD, “and nutritional deficiencies themselves can lead to symptoms or side effects that can cause people to eat less,” she said.

“As our vitamin B₁₂ goes down, our cognitive functioning starts to decline, and we might not be making clear decisions in how we’re deciding what to eat, when to eat, if we should be eating at all – just something to think about in your patients who have nutritional deficiencies,” she told the audience.

Other common nutritional deficiencies that can affect eating and food choice among patients with IBD include low folate (B9) levels associated with sore tongue and weight loss, low iron levels leading to nausea and loss of appetite, and zinc deficiency leading to loss of appetite and alterations in taste and/or smell, she said.
 

Newly recognized in GI

She noted that “ARFID actually originates in the pediatric psychiatric literature, mostly in children with sensory issues [such as] autism spectrum disorder, so this is not a construct that started in digestive disease, but has been adapted and applied to patients with digestive disease, including IBD.”

The DSM-5 lists four criteria for ARFID: significant weight loss, significant nutritional deficiency, dependence on enteral nutrition or oral supplements, and marked interference with psychosocial functions.

Helen Burton Murray, PhD, director of the gastrointestinal behavioral health program in the Center for Neurointestinal Health at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who is familiar with Dr. Taft’s work, said in an interview that inclusion of ARFID in DSM-5 has put a name to a syndrome or symptom cluster that in all likelihood already existed.

However, “the jury is still out about whether, if we do diagnose patients who have digestive diseases with ARFID, that then helps them get to a treatment that improves their relationship with food and improves nutritional issues that may have occurred as a result of a restricted food intake,” she said.

“We don’t know yet if the diagnosis will actually improve things. In our clinical practice, anecdotally, it has, both for patients with IBDs and for patients with other GI conditions, particularly GI functional motility disorders. We’re a little bit more confident about making the diagnosis of ARFID in GI functional motility disorders than we are in IBD of course,” she said.
 

Screening measures

To get a better sense of the prevalence of ARFID, compared with reasonable responses to digestive diseases, Dr. Taft and colleagues conducted their cross-sectional study in 289 adults with achalasia, celiac, eosinophilic esophagitis, or IBD.

They found that 51.3% of the total sample met the diagnostic criteria for ARFID based on the Nine-Item ARFID Screen (NIAS), including 75.7 % of patients with achalasia. But Dr. Taft had cautions

“I can tell you, working with achalasia patients, 75% do not have ARFID,” Dr. Taft said.

She noted that the 51.3% of patients with IBD identified by NIAS or the 53% identified by the ARFID+ scale as having ARFID was also highly doubtful.

Dr. Taft and colleagues determined that nearly half of the variance in the NIAS could be accounted for by GI symptoms rather than psychosocial factors, making it less than ideal for use in the clinic or by researchers.

She also noted, however, that she received an email from one of the creators of NIAS, Hana F. Zickgraf, PhD, from the University of South Alabama, Mobile. Dr. Zickgraf agreed that the scale had drawbacks when applied to patients with GI disease, and pointed instead to the Fear of Food Questionnaire, a newly developed 18-item GI disease-specific instrument. Dr. Taft recommended the new questionnaire for research purposes, and expressed hope that a shorter version could be made available for screening patients in clinic.

Dr. Burton Murray said that while the Fear of Food Questionnaire, perhaps in combination with NIAS, has the potential to be a useful screening tool, cutoffs for it have yet to be established.

“At the end of the day, the diagnosis would be made by a clinician who is able to determine whether the life impairment or if the nutritional impairment or restricted food intake are reasonable in the realm of their digestive disease, or could a treatment for ARFID be warranted to help them to make changes to improve their quality of life and nutrition,” she said.
 

Check biases at the door

Before arriving at a diagnosis of ARFID, clinicians should also consider biases, Dr. Taft said.

“Eating disorders are highly stigmatized and stereotyped diagnoses,” more often attributed to young White women than to either men or to people of racial or ethnic minorities, she said.

Cultural background may contribute to food restrictions, and the risk may increase with age, with 68% of patients with later-onset IBD restricting diets to control the disease. It’s also possible that beliefs about food and “clean and healthy” eating may influence food and eating choices after a patient receives an IBD diagnosis.

Dr. Taft also pointed out that clinicians and patients may have different ideas about what constitutes significant food avoidance. Clinicians may expect patients with IBD to eat despite feeling nauseated, having abdominal pains, or diarrhea, for example, when the same food avoidance might be deemed reasonable in patients with short-term GI infections.

“Severe IBD symptoms are a significant predictor of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, and PTSD is hallmarked by avoidance behaviors,” she added.

She emphasized the need for clinicians to ask the right questions of patients to get at the roots of their nutritional deficiency or eating behavior, and to refer patients to mental health professionals with expertise in disordered eating or GI psychology.

Dr. Taft and Dr. Burton Murray reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

This article was updated on Feb. 4, 2022.

Problems with eating and nutrition are common among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and other gastrointestinal disorders, but clinicians who treat them should be careful not to automatically assume that patients have eating disorders, according to a psychologist who specializes in the psychological and social aspects of chronic digestive diseases.

On the other hand, clinicians must also be aware of the possibility that patients could have a recently identified syndrome cluster called avoidant restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID), said Tiffany Taft, PsyD, a research associate professor of medicine (gastroenterology and hepatology), medical social sciences, and psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University, Chicago. In a recent study, she and her colleagues defined ARFID as “failure to meet one’s nutritional needs owing to sensory hypersensitivity, lack of interest in eating, or fear of aversive consequences from eating, and is associated with negative medical and psychosocial outcomes.”

gerenme/ThinkStock

ARFID “is a hot topic that we really don’t understand,” she said in an online presentation at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership  of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Nutritional deficiencies

Nutritional deficiencies are common among patients with IBD, “and nutritional deficiencies themselves can lead to symptoms or side effects that can cause people to eat less,” she said.

“As our vitamin B₁₂ goes down, our cognitive functioning starts to decline, and we might not be making clear decisions in how we’re deciding what to eat, when to eat, if we should be eating at all – just something to think about in your patients who have nutritional deficiencies,” she told the audience.

Other common nutritional deficiencies that can affect eating and food choice among patients with IBD include low folate (B9) levels associated with sore tongue and weight loss, low iron levels leading to nausea and loss of appetite, and zinc deficiency leading to loss of appetite and alterations in taste and/or smell, she said.
 

Newly recognized in GI

She noted that “ARFID actually originates in the pediatric psychiatric literature, mostly in children with sensory issues [such as] autism spectrum disorder, so this is not a construct that started in digestive disease, but has been adapted and applied to patients with digestive disease, including IBD.”

The DSM-5 lists four criteria for ARFID: significant weight loss, significant nutritional deficiency, dependence on enteral nutrition or oral supplements, and marked interference with psychosocial functions.

Helen Burton Murray, PhD, director of the gastrointestinal behavioral health program in the Center for Neurointestinal Health at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who is familiar with Dr. Taft’s work, said in an interview that inclusion of ARFID in DSM-5 has put a name to a syndrome or symptom cluster that in all likelihood already existed.

However, “the jury is still out about whether, if we do diagnose patients who have digestive diseases with ARFID, that then helps them get to a treatment that improves their relationship with food and improves nutritional issues that may have occurred as a result of a restricted food intake,” she said.

“We don’t know yet if the diagnosis will actually improve things. In our clinical practice, anecdotally, it has, both for patients with IBDs and for patients with other GI conditions, particularly GI functional motility disorders. We’re a little bit more confident about making the diagnosis of ARFID in GI functional motility disorders than we are in IBD of course,” she said.
 

Screening measures

To get a better sense of the prevalence of ARFID, compared with reasonable responses to digestive diseases, Dr. Taft and colleagues conducted their cross-sectional study in 289 adults with achalasia, celiac, eosinophilic esophagitis, or IBD.

They found that 51.3% of the total sample met the diagnostic criteria for ARFID based on the Nine-Item ARFID Screen (NIAS), including 75.7 % of patients with achalasia. But Dr. Taft had cautions

“I can tell you, working with achalasia patients, 75% do not have ARFID,” Dr. Taft said.

She noted that the 51.3% of patients with IBD identified by NIAS or the 53% identified by the ARFID+ scale as having ARFID was also highly doubtful.

Dr. Taft and colleagues determined that nearly half of the variance in the NIAS could be accounted for by GI symptoms rather than psychosocial factors, making it less than ideal for use in the clinic or by researchers.

She also noted, however, that she received an email from one of the creators of NIAS, Hana F. Zickgraf, PhD, from the University of South Alabama, Mobile. Dr. Zickgraf agreed that the scale had drawbacks when applied to patients with GI disease, and pointed instead to the Fear of Food Questionnaire, a newly developed 18-item GI disease-specific instrument. Dr. Taft recommended the new questionnaire for research purposes, and expressed hope that a shorter version could be made available for screening patients in clinic.

Dr. Burton Murray said that while the Fear of Food Questionnaire, perhaps in combination with NIAS, has the potential to be a useful screening tool, cutoffs for it have yet to be established.

“At the end of the day, the diagnosis would be made by a clinician who is able to determine whether the life impairment or if the nutritional impairment or restricted food intake are reasonable in the realm of their digestive disease, or could a treatment for ARFID be warranted to help them to make changes to improve their quality of life and nutrition,” she said.
 

Check biases at the door

Before arriving at a diagnosis of ARFID, clinicians should also consider biases, Dr. Taft said.

“Eating disorders are highly stigmatized and stereotyped diagnoses,” more often attributed to young White women than to either men or to people of racial or ethnic minorities, she said.

Cultural background may contribute to food restrictions, and the risk may increase with age, with 68% of patients with later-onset IBD restricting diets to control the disease. It’s also possible that beliefs about food and “clean and healthy” eating may influence food and eating choices after a patient receives an IBD diagnosis.

Dr. Taft also pointed out that clinicians and patients may have different ideas about what constitutes significant food avoidance. Clinicians may expect patients with IBD to eat despite feeling nauseated, having abdominal pains, or diarrhea, for example, when the same food avoidance might be deemed reasonable in patients with short-term GI infections.

“Severe IBD symptoms are a significant predictor of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, and PTSD is hallmarked by avoidance behaviors,” she added.

She emphasized the need for clinicians to ask the right questions of patients to get at the roots of their nutritional deficiency or eating behavior, and to refer patients to mental health professionals with expertise in disordered eating or GI psychology.

Dr. Taft and Dr. Burton Murray reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

This article was updated on Feb. 4, 2022.

Problems with eating and nutrition are common among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and other gastrointestinal disorders, but clinicians who treat them should be careful not to automatically assume that patients have eating disorders, according to a psychologist who specializes in the psychological and social aspects of chronic digestive diseases.

On the other hand, clinicians must also be aware of the possibility that patients could have a recently identified syndrome cluster called avoidant restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID), said Tiffany Taft, PsyD, a research associate professor of medicine (gastroenterology and hepatology), medical social sciences, and psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University, Chicago. In a recent study, she and her colleagues defined ARFID as “failure to meet one’s nutritional needs owing to sensory hypersensitivity, lack of interest in eating, or fear of aversive consequences from eating, and is associated with negative medical and psychosocial outcomes.”

gerenme/ThinkStock

ARFID “is a hot topic that we really don’t understand,” she said in an online presentation at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership  of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Nutritional deficiencies

Nutritional deficiencies are common among patients with IBD, “and nutritional deficiencies themselves can lead to symptoms or side effects that can cause people to eat less,” she said.

“As our vitamin B₁₂ goes down, our cognitive functioning starts to decline, and we might not be making clear decisions in how we’re deciding what to eat, when to eat, if we should be eating at all – just something to think about in your patients who have nutritional deficiencies,” she told the audience.

Other common nutritional deficiencies that can affect eating and food choice among patients with IBD include low folate (B9) levels associated with sore tongue and weight loss, low iron levels leading to nausea and loss of appetite, and zinc deficiency leading to loss of appetite and alterations in taste and/or smell, she said.
 

Newly recognized in GI

She noted that “ARFID actually originates in the pediatric psychiatric literature, mostly in children with sensory issues [such as] autism spectrum disorder, so this is not a construct that started in digestive disease, but has been adapted and applied to patients with digestive disease, including IBD.”

The DSM-5 lists four criteria for ARFID: significant weight loss, significant nutritional deficiency, dependence on enteral nutrition or oral supplements, and marked interference with psychosocial functions.

Helen Burton Murray, PhD, director of the gastrointestinal behavioral health program in the Center for Neurointestinal Health at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who is familiar with Dr. Taft’s work, said in an interview that inclusion of ARFID in DSM-5 has put a name to a syndrome or symptom cluster that in all likelihood already existed.

However, “the jury is still out about whether, if we do diagnose patients who have digestive diseases with ARFID, that then helps them get to a treatment that improves their relationship with food and improves nutritional issues that may have occurred as a result of a restricted food intake,” she said.

“We don’t know yet if the diagnosis will actually improve things. In our clinical practice, anecdotally, it has, both for patients with IBDs and for patients with other GI conditions, particularly GI functional motility disorders. We’re a little bit more confident about making the diagnosis of ARFID in GI functional motility disorders than we are in IBD of course,” she said.
 

Screening measures

To get a better sense of the prevalence of ARFID, compared with reasonable responses to digestive diseases, Dr. Taft and colleagues conducted their cross-sectional study in 289 adults with achalasia, celiac, eosinophilic esophagitis, or IBD.

They found that 51.3% of the total sample met the diagnostic criteria for ARFID based on the Nine-Item ARFID Screen (NIAS), including 75.7 % of patients with achalasia. But Dr. Taft had cautions

“I can tell you, working with achalasia patients, 75% do not have ARFID,” Dr. Taft said.

She noted that the 51.3% of patients with IBD identified by NIAS or the 53% identified by the ARFID+ scale as having ARFID was also highly doubtful.

Dr. Taft and colleagues determined that nearly half of the variance in the NIAS could be accounted for by GI symptoms rather than psychosocial factors, making it less than ideal for use in the clinic or by researchers.

She also noted, however, that she received an email from one of the creators of NIAS, Hana F. Zickgraf, PhD, from the University of South Alabama, Mobile. Dr. Zickgraf agreed that the scale had drawbacks when applied to patients with GI disease, and pointed instead to the Fear of Food Questionnaire, a newly developed 18-item GI disease-specific instrument. Dr. Taft recommended the new questionnaire for research purposes, and expressed hope that a shorter version could be made available for screening patients in clinic.

Dr. Burton Murray said that while the Fear of Food Questionnaire, perhaps in combination with NIAS, has the potential to be a useful screening tool, cutoffs for it have yet to be established.

“At the end of the day, the diagnosis would be made by a clinician who is able to determine whether the life impairment or if the nutritional impairment or restricted food intake are reasonable in the realm of their digestive disease, or could a treatment for ARFID be warranted to help them to make changes to improve their quality of life and nutrition,” she said.
 

Check biases at the door

Before arriving at a diagnosis of ARFID, clinicians should also consider biases, Dr. Taft said.

“Eating disorders are highly stigmatized and stereotyped diagnoses,” more often attributed to young White women than to either men or to people of racial or ethnic minorities, she said.

Cultural background may contribute to food restrictions, and the risk may increase with age, with 68% of patients with later-onset IBD restricting diets to control the disease. It’s also possible that beliefs about food and “clean and healthy” eating may influence food and eating choices after a patient receives an IBD diagnosis.

Dr. Taft also pointed out that clinicians and patients may have different ideas about what constitutes significant food avoidance. Clinicians may expect patients with IBD to eat despite feeling nauseated, having abdominal pains, or diarrhea, for example, when the same food avoidance might be deemed reasonable in patients with short-term GI infections.

“Severe IBD symptoms are a significant predictor of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, and PTSD is hallmarked by avoidance behaviors,” she added.

She emphasized the need for clinicians to ask the right questions of patients to get at the roots of their nutritional deficiency or eating behavior, and to refer patients to mental health professionals with expertise in disordered eating or GI psychology.

Dr. Taft and Dr. Burton Murray reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

This article was updated on Feb. 4, 2022.

Lipedema – a disease that causes excess fat to accumulate primarily in the lower part of the body – is a condition “that most physicians in the U.S. don’t understand,” according to C. William Hanke, MD, MPH.

“This disease is well known in Europe, especially in the Netherlands, Germany, and Austria, but in this country, I believe most dermatologists have never heard of it,” Dr. Hanke said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference.

Clinically, patients with lipedema – also known as “two-body syndrome” – present with a symmetric, bilateral increase in subcutaneous fat, with “cuffs of fat” around the ankles. It usually affects the legs and thighs; the hands and feet are not affected.

“From the waist on up, the body looks like one person, and from the waist on down, it looks like an entirely different person,” said Dr. Hanke, a dermatologist who is program director for the micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology fellowship training program at Ascension St. Vincent Hospital in Indianapolis. “Just think of the difficulty that the person has with their life in terms of buying clothes or social interactions. This is a devastating problem.”

Lipedema almost always affects women and is progressive from puberty. “Characteristically, patients have pain and bruise easily in the areas of lipedema,” said Dr. Hanke, who has served as president of the American Academy of Dermatology, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, the American College of Mohs Surgery, and the International Society for Dermatologic Surgery. The affected areas are painful to touch, making exercise uncomfortable for patients, he said.

Courtesy Dr. C. William Hanke.

Lipedema can be masked by obesity, “so, if you superimpose generalized obesity on lipedema, you have an even more difficult problem,” he added. “A physician who doesn’t understand the disease may perform standard nontumescent liposuction under general anesthesia, with cannulas, which traumatize lipedematous fat. Thereby, a patient with lipedema can then be inadvertently transformed into a patient with lympholipedema. Then you’ve got even an even worse problem.”

One might think that the rate of diabetes would be high among lipedema patients, “but diabetes is essentially nonexistent in this group,” he continued. However, patients with lipedema “may develop hypothyroidism, venous disease, joint pain, and fibrosis in the fat as the disease progresses.”
 

Lipedema stages, treatment

Lipedema is defined by three clinical stages: Stage one is characterized by an enlarged subcutaneous fat department, but the skin surface is smooth. In stage 2, the skin surface becomes wavy with irregularities and dents, and in stage 3, patients develop large deforming nodules and hanging flaps.

“If we can diagnose lipedema in the early stages and perform tumescent liposuction using tumescent local anesthesia, we can prevent the progression of the disease,” Dr. Hanke said. For patients who meet criteria for tumescent liposuction, three to six treatments may be required for stage 3 disease. “Tumescent local anesthesia should be used, because liposuction using tumescent local anesthesia is atraumatic to fat,” he said. “Usually, the most painful areas are treated first.”

In a single-center study from Germany that followed 85 patients who underwent tumescent liposuction for lipedema, researchers found that improvements in pain, bruising, and mobility were sustained at 4 and 8 years following the procedure. Patient quality of life and cosmetic appearance were also sustained.

In terms of liposuction’s cosmetic effects, “the goal of liposuction in lipedema patients is different,” Dr. Hanke said. “The goal is to get these people moving again, stabilize their weight, and minimize progression of the disease. Cosmetic improvement is secondary.”

A more recent follow-up study of 60 patients from the same single-center German study showed that the positive effects of liposuction lasted 12 years postoperatively without relevant progression of disease.

Following the first International Consensus Conference on Lipedema in Vienna in 2017, Dr. Hanke and colleagues published guidelines on preventing progression of lipedema with liposuction using tumescent local anesthesia.

“If patients with lipedema gain weight, the problem becomes even worse,” he said. “A sensible diet and nontraumatic exercise like water aerobics is ideal. If patients pursue yo-yo dieting, more and more fat stays in the legs after each cycle. Sometimes I’ll refer overweight patients with lipedema for a bariatric surgery consult.”

Dr. Hanke noted that Karen Herbst, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson, who is widely considered an expert on the medical management of lipedema, has a website on lipedema care.

Dr. Hanke reported having no financial conflicts related to his presentation.
 

Lipedema – a disease that causes excess fat to accumulate primarily in the lower part of the body – is a condition “that most physicians in the U.S. don’t understand,” according to C. William Hanke, MD, MPH.

“This disease is well known in Europe, especially in the Netherlands, Germany, and Austria, but in this country, I believe most dermatologists have never heard of it,” Dr. Hanke said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference.

Clinically, patients with lipedema – also known as “two-body syndrome” – present with a symmetric, bilateral increase in subcutaneous fat, with “cuffs of fat” around the ankles. It usually affects the legs and thighs; the hands and feet are not affected.

“From the waist on up, the body looks like one person, and from the waist on down, it looks like an entirely different person,” said Dr. Hanke, a dermatologist who is program director for the micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology fellowship training program at Ascension St. Vincent Hospital in Indianapolis. “Just think of the difficulty that the person has with their life in terms of buying clothes or social interactions. This is a devastating problem.”

Lipedema almost always affects women and is progressive from puberty. “Characteristically, patients have pain and bruise easily in the areas of lipedema,” said Dr. Hanke, who has served as president of the American Academy of Dermatology, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, the American College of Mohs Surgery, and the International Society for Dermatologic Surgery. The affected areas are painful to touch, making exercise uncomfortable for patients, he said.

Courtesy Dr. C. William Hanke.

Lipedema can be masked by obesity, “so, if you superimpose generalized obesity on lipedema, you have an even more difficult problem,” he added. “A physician who doesn’t understand the disease may perform standard nontumescent liposuction under general anesthesia, with cannulas, which traumatize lipedematous fat. Thereby, a patient with lipedema can then be inadvertently transformed into a patient with lympholipedema. Then you’ve got even an even worse problem.”

One might think that the rate of diabetes would be high among lipedema patients, “but diabetes is essentially nonexistent in this group,” he continued. However, patients with lipedema “may develop hypothyroidism, venous disease, joint pain, and fibrosis in the fat as the disease progresses.”
 

Lipedema stages, treatment

Lipedema is defined by three clinical stages: Stage one is characterized by an enlarged subcutaneous fat department, but the skin surface is smooth. In stage 2, the skin surface becomes wavy with irregularities and dents, and in stage 3, patients develop large deforming nodules and hanging flaps.

“If we can diagnose lipedema in the early stages and perform tumescent liposuction using tumescent local anesthesia, we can prevent the progression of the disease,” Dr. Hanke said. For patients who meet criteria for tumescent liposuction, three to six treatments may be required for stage 3 disease. “Tumescent local anesthesia should be used, because liposuction using tumescent local anesthesia is atraumatic to fat,” he said. “Usually, the most painful areas are treated first.”

In a single-center study from Germany that followed 85 patients who underwent tumescent liposuction for lipedema, researchers found that improvements in pain, bruising, and mobility were sustained at 4 and 8 years following the procedure. Patient quality of life and cosmetic appearance were also sustained.

In terms of liposuction’s cosmetic effects, “the goal of liposuction in lipedema patients is different,” Dr. Hanke said. “The goal is to get these people moving again, stabilize their weight, and minimize progression of the disease. Cosmetic improvement is secondary.”

A more recent follow-up study of 60 patients from the same single-center German study showed that the positive effects of liposuction lasted 12 years postoperatively without relevant progression of disease.

Following the first International Consensus Conference on Lipedema in Vienna in 2017, Dr. Hanke and colleagues published guidelines on preventing progression of lipedema with liposuction using tumescent local anesthesia.

“If patients with lipedema gain weight, the problem becomes even worse,” he said. “A sensible diet and nontraumatic exercise like water aerobics is ideal. If patients pursue yo-yo dieting, more and more fat stays in the legs after each cycle. Sometimes I’ll refer overweight patients with lipedema for a bariatric surgery consult.”

Dr. Hanke noted that Karen Herbst, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson, who is widely considered an expert on the medical management of lipedema, has a website on lipedema care.

Dr. Hanke reported having no financial conflicts related to his presentation.
 

Lipedema – a disease that causes excess fat to accumulate primarily in the lower part of the body – is a condition “that most physicians in the U.S. don’t understand,” according to C. William Hanke, MD, MPH.

“This disease is well known in Europe, especially in the Netherlands, Germany, and Austria, but in this country, I believe most dermatologists have never heard of it,” Dr. Hanke said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference.

Clinically, patients with lipedema – also known as “two-body syndrome” – present with a symmetric, bilateral increase in subcutaneous fat, with “cuffs of fat” around the ankles. It usually affects the legs and thighs; the hands and feet are not affected.

“From the waist on up, the body looks like one person, and from the waist on down, it looks like an entirely different person,” said Dr. Hanke, a dermatologist who is program director for the micrographic surgery and dermatologic oncology fellowship training program at Ascension St. Vincent Hospital in Indianapolis. “Just think of the difficulty that the person has with their life in terms of buying clothes or social interactions. This is a devastating problem.”

Lipedema almost always affects women and is progressive from puberty. “Characteristically, patients have pain and bruise easily in the areas of lipedema,” said Dr. Hanke, who has served as president of the American Academy of Dermatology, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, the American College of Mohs Surgery, and the International Society for Dermatologic Surgery. The affected areas are painful to touch, making exercise uncomfortable for patients, he said.

Courtesy Dr. C. William Hanke.

Lipedema can be masked by obesity, “so, if you superimpose generalized obesity on lipedema, you have an even more difficult problem,” he added. “A physician who doesn’t understand the disease may perform standard nontumescent liposuction under general anesthesia, with cannulas, which traumatize lipedematous fat. Thereby, a patient with lipedema can then be inadvertently transformed into a patient with lympholipedema. Then you’ve got even an even worse problem.”

One might think that the rate of diabetes would be high among lipedema patients, “but diabetes is essentially nonexistent in this group,” he continued. However, patients with lipedema “may develop hypothyroidism, venous disease, joint pain, and fibrosis in the fat as the disease progresses.”
 

Lipedema stages, treatment

Lipedema is defined by three clinical stages: Stage one is characterized by an enlarged subcutaneous fat department, but the skin surface is smooth. In stage 2, the skin surface becomes wavy with irregularities and dents, and in stage 3, patients develop large deforming nodules and hanging flaps.

“If we can diagnose lipedema in the early stages and perform tumescent liposuction using tumescent local anesthesia, we can prevent the progression of the disease,” Dr. Hanke said. For patients who meet criteria for tumescent liposuction, three to six treatments may be required for stage 3 disease. “Tumescent local anesthesia should be used, because liposuction using tumescent local anesthesia is atraumatic to fat,” he said. “Usually, the most painful areas are treated first.”

In a single-center study from Germany that followed 85 patients who underwent tumescent liposuction for lipedema, researchers found that improvements in pain, bruising, and mobility were sustained at 4 and 8 years following the procedure. Patient quality of life and cosmetic appearance were also sustained.

In terms of liposuction’s cosmetic effects, “the goal of liposuction in lipedema patients is different,” Dr. Hanke said. “The goal is to get these people moving again, stabilize their weight, and minimize progression of the disease. Cosmetic improvement is secondary.”

A more recent follow-up study of 60 patients from the same single-center German study showed that the positive effects of liposuction lasted 12 years postoperatively without relevant progression of disease.

Following the first International Consensus Conference on Lipedema in Vienna in 2017, Dr. Hanke and colleagues published guidelines on preventing progression of lipedema with liposuction using tumescent local anesthesia.

“If patients with lipedema gain weight, the problem becomes even worse,” he said. “A sensible diet and nontraumatic exercise like water aerobics is ideal. If patients pursue yo-yo dieting, more and more fat stays in the legs after each cycle. Sometimes I’ll refer overweight patients with lipedema for a bariatric surgery consult.”

Dr. Hanke noted that Karen Herbst, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson, who is widely considered an expert on the medical management of lipedema, has a website on lipedema care.

Dr. Hanke reported having no financial conflicts related to his presentation.
 

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) plus chemotherapy should be considered the new first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer, according to the final results of a large phase 3 study.

An interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-590 study, published in 2020, found that the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line setting proved superior to chemotherapy alone in all outcome measures.

The updated analysis, which adds 12 months of follow-up data, shows “first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide clinically meaningful benefits in all patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer, including [gastroesophageal junction] adenocarcinoma,” said lead author Jean-Philippe Metges, MD, of the CHU Brest-Institut de Cancerologie et d’Hematologie ARPEGO Network, Brest, France.

Similar quality of life and safety data were also observed with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Dr. Metges added.

“These longer-term data further support first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a new standard of care in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer,” he said.

The updated analysis was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
 

Pembro for esophageal cancer

Pembrolizumab first received regulatory approval in 2019 as monotherapy in the second-line setting to treat recurrent locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus in tumors with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

In response to the interim KEYNOTE-590 data, the FDA expanded the indication in 2021, granting accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in combination with platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients who were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy.

The updated KEYNOTE-590 data lend greater weight for the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer.

In the analysis, a total of 749 eligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), adenocarcinoma, or Siewert type 1 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-L1 status, were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

The authors evaluated overall survival in all patients as well as subgroups including those with ESCC, ESCC PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10 tumors, and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. The research team also looked at progression-free survival in most groups and overall response rate, duration of response, safety, and health-related quality of life.

Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or until 2 years, with no crossover permitted.

At the median follow-up of 34.8 months, median overall survival was longer for all patients receiving the combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.73) as well as patients with ESCC (HR, 0.73), ESCC CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.59), CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.64), and adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.73).

For progression-free survival, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior in all patients (HR, 0.64), the ESCC group (HR, 0.65), as well as the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumor group (HR, 0.51).

The 24-month overall survival in all patients was also notably higher for those receiving the combination therapy – 26.3% versus 16.1% – as was 24-month progression-free survival – 11.6% versus 3.3%.

The overall response rate was 45.0% in the combination group, with 25 complete responses (6.7%), versus 29.3% in the control group, with 9 complete responses (2.4%). The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the combination group versus 6.0 months in the chemotherapy group. About 20% of patients in the combination group had a response rate lasting 24 months or longer, compared with 6% who received chemotherapy alone.

As for safety, grade 3-5 drug-related adverse events were similar in both arms – 72% for the combination versus 68% for chemotherapy alone. However, more patients in the combination group discontinued treatment because of drug-related adverse events – 21% versus 12%.

No additional or surprise adverse events occurred with the longer follow-up, plus quality of life was comparable between groups, Dr. Metges noted.

Stefano Cascinu, MD, Università Vita-Salute, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, who was not involved in the analysis, reiterated that this update confirms the findings from earlier analyses and shows a benefit across all subgroups.

“One of the most relevant findings was that 20% of patients were responding for more than 24 months,” he said. “It is also important that a similar quality of life was maintained.”

Although Dr. Cascinu emphasized that this is a landmark trial in advanced esophageal and gastric cancers, he indicated to several points that remain to be investigated. These include the reproducibility of the findings in common clinical situations – such as a patient with impaired performance status, malnutrition, or peritoneal involvement – as well as the role of PD-L1.

The efficacy of the combination therapy across all subgroups led to a wide FDA approval, though the European Medicines Agency limited its approval to patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors.

“Even though all subgroups did well, patients with [PD-L1] CPS ≥10 did better,” said Dr. Cascinu. “[And] in reality, the benefit may only be driven by a specific subpopulation.”

Dr. Cascinu added: “PD-L1 may be a negative biomarker and may be informative about the magnitude of benefit. This may be useful to discuss with patients regarding the expected benefit [of this therapeutic option].”

The study was supported by Merck & Co. Dr. Metges reported receiving payment for travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, LEO Pharma, and MSD Oncology, and receiving honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Syncore. Dr. Cascinu has disclosed honoraria from BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and others, as well as a consulting or advisory role for many of these same manufacturers and serving on the speakers’ bureau of Lilly and SERVIER. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

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

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) plus chemotherapy should be considered the new first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer, according to the final results of a large phase 3 study.

An interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-590 study, published in 2020, found that the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line setting proved superior to chemotherapy alone in all outcome measures.

The updated analysis, which adds 12 months of follow-up data, shows “first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide clinically meaningful benefits in all patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer, including [gastroesophageal junction] adenocarcinoma,” said lead author Jean-Philippe Metges, MD, of the CHU Brest-Institut de Cancerologie et d’Hematologie ARPEGO Network, Brest, France.

Similar quality of life and safety data were also observed with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Dr. Metges added.

“These longer-term data further support first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a new standard of care in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer,” he said.

The updated analysis was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
 

Pembro for esophageal cancer

Pembrolizumab first received regulatory approval in 2019 as monotherapy in the second-line setting to treat recurrent locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus in tumors with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

In response to the interim KEYNOTE-590 data, the FDA expanded the indication in 2021, granting accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in combination with platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients who were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy.

The updated KEYNOTE-590 data lend greater weight for the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer.

In the analysis, a total of 749 eligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), adenocarcinoma, or Siewert type 1 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-L1 status, were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

The authors evaluated overall survival in all patients as well as subgroups including those with ESCC, ESCC PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10 tumors, and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. The research team also looked at progression-free survival in most groups and overall response rate, duration of response, safety, and health-related quality of life.

Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or until 2 years, with no crossover permitted.

At the median follow-up of 34.8 months, median overall survival was longer for all patients receiving the combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.73) as well as patients with ESCC (HR, 0.73), ESCC CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.59), CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.64), and adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.73).

For progression-free survival, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior in all patients (HR, 0.64), the ESCC group (HR, 0.65), as well as the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumor group (HR, 0.51).

The 24-month overall survival in all patients was also notably higher for those receiving the combination therapy – 26.3% versus 16.1% – as was 24-month progression-free survival – 11.6% versus 3.3%.

The overall response rate was 45.0% in the combination group, with 25 complete responses (6.7%), versus 29.3% in the control group, with 9 complete responses (2.4%). The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the combination group versus 6.0 months in the chemotherapy group. About 20% of patients in the combination group had a response rate lasting 24 months or longer, compared with 6% who received chemotherapy alone.

As for safety, grade 3-5 drug-related adverse events were similar in both arms – 72% for the combination versus 68% for chemotherapy alone. However, more patients in the combination group discontinued treatment because of drug-related adverse events – 21% versus 12%.

No additional or surprise adverse events occurred with the longer follow-up, plus quality of life was comparable between groups, Dr. Metges noted.

Stefano Cascinu, MD, Università Vita-Salute, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, who was not involved in the analysis, reiterated that this update confirms the findings from earlier analyses and shows a benefit across all subgroups.

“One of the most relevant findings was that 20% of patients were responding for more than 24 months,” he said. “It is also important that a similar quality of life was maintained.”

Although Dr. Cascinu emphasized that this is a landmark trial in advanced esophageal and gastric cancers, he indicated to several points that remain to be investigated. These include the reproducibility of the findings in common clinical situations – such as a patient with impaired performance status, malnutrition, or peritoneal involvement – as well as the role of PD-L1.

The efficacy of the combination therapy across all subgroups led to a wide FDA approval, though the European Medicines Agency limited its approval to patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors.

“Even though all subgroups did well, patients with [PD-L1] CPS ≥10 did better,” said Dr. Cascinu. “[And] in reality, the benefit may only be driven by a specific subpopulation.”

Dr. Cascinu added: “PD-L1 may be a negative biomarker and may be informative about the magnitude of benefit. This may be useful to discuss with patients regarding the expected benefit [of this therapeutic option].”

The study was supported by Merck & Co. Dr. Metges reported receiving payment for travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, LEO Pharma, and MSD Oncology, and receiving honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Syncore. Dr. Cascinu has disclosed honoraria from BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and others, as well as a consulting or advisory role for many of these same manufacturers and serving on the speakers’ bureau of Lilly and SERVIER. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

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

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) plus chemotherapy should be considered the new first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer, according to the final results of a large phase 3 study.

An interim analysis of the KEYNOTE-590 study, published in 2020, found that the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line setting proved superior to chemotherapy alone in all outcome measures.

The updated analysis, which adds 12 months of follow-up data, shows “first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy continued to provide clinically meaningful benefits in all patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer, including [gastroesophageal junction] adenocarcinoma,” said lead author Jean-Philippe Metges, MD, of the CHU Brest-Institut de Cancerologie et d’Hematologie ARPEGO Network, Brest, France.

Similar quality of life and safety data were also observed with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Dr. Metges added.

“These longer-term data further support first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a new standard of care in patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer,” he said.

The updated analysis was presented at the 2022 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
 

Pembro for esophageal cancer

Pembrolizumab first received regulatory approval in 2019 as monotherapy in the second-line setting to treat recurrent locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus in tumors with programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression.

In response to the interim KEYNOTE-590 data, the FDA expanded the indication in 2021, granting accelerated approval for pembrolizumab in combination with platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients who were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy.

The updated KEYNOTE-590 data lend greater weight for the use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line standard of care in advanced esophageal cancer.

In the analysis, a total of 749 eligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), adenocarcinoma, or Siewert type 1 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, regardless of PD-L1 status, were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin once every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles.

The authors evaluated overall survival in all patients as well as subgroups including those with ESCC, ESCC PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10 tumors, and PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. The research team also looked at progression-free survival in most groups and overall response rate, duration of response, safety, and health-related quality of life.

Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or until 2 years, with no crossover permitted.

At the median follow-up of 34.8 months, median overall survival was longer for all patients receiving the combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.73) as well as patients with ESCC (HR, 0.73), ESCC CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.59), CPS ≥10 (HR, 0.64), and adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.73).

For progression-free survival, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior in all patients (HR, 0.64), the ESCC group (HR, 0.65), as well as the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumor group (HR, 0.51).

The 24-month overall survival in all patients was also notably higher for those receiving the combination therapy – 26.3% versus 16.1% – as was 24-month progression-free survival – 11.6% versus 3.3%.

The overall response rate was 45.0% in the combination group, with 25 complete responses (6.7%), versus 29.3% in the control group, with 9 complete responses (2.4%). The median duration of response was 8.3 months in the combination group versus 6.0 months in the chemotherapy group. About 20% of patients in the combination group had a response rate lasting 24 months or longer, compared with 6% who received chemotherapy alone.

As for safety, grade 3-5 drug-related adverse events were similar in both arms – 72% for the combination versus 68% for chemotherapy alone. However, more patients in the combination group discontinued treatment because of drug-related adverse events – 21% versus 12%.

No additional or surprise adverse events occurred with the longer follow-up, plus quality of life was comparable between groups, Dr. Metges noted.

Stefano Cascinu, MD, Università Vita-Salute, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, who was not involved in the analysis, reiterated that this update confirms the findings from earlier analyses and shows a benefit across all subgroups.

“One of the most relevant findings was that 20% of patients were responding for more than 24 months,” he said. “It is also important that a similar quality of life was maintained.”

Although Dr. Cascinu emphasized that this is a landmark trial in advanced esophageal and gastric cancers, he indicated to several points that remain to be investigated. These include the reproducibility of the findings in common clinical situations – such as a patient with impaired performance status, malnutrition, or peritoneal involvement – as well as the role of PD-L1.

The efficacy of the combination therapy across all subgroups led to a wide FDA approval, though the European Medicines Agency limited its approval to patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors.

“Even though all subgroups did well, patients with [PD-L1] CPS ≥10 did better,” said Dr. Cascinu. “[And] in reality, the benefit may only be driven by a specific subpopulation.”

Dr. Cascinu added: “PD-L1 may be a negative biomarker and may be informative about the magnitude of benefit. This may be useful to discuss with patients regarding the expected benefit [of this therapeutic option].”

The study was supported by Merck & Co. Dr. Metges reported receiving payment for travel, accommodations, expenses from Amgen, LEO Pharma, and MSD Oncology, and receiving honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Syncore. Dr. Cascinu has disclosed honoraria from BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, and others, as well as a consulting or advisory role for many of these same manufacturers and serving on the speakers’ bureau of Lilly and SERVIER. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

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