Obstetrics

Dunne F, Newman C, Alvarez-Iglesia A, et al. Early metformin in gestational diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2023;330:1547-1556. doi:10.1001/jama .2023.19869

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Gestational diabetes mellitus occurs in 4% to 7% of pregnancies, and the prevalence is likely to continue to increase given the rising rates of hypertension, obesity, advanced maternal age, and other medical comorbidities in pregnant persons in the United States.^1,2 Uncontrolled hyperglycemia in pregnancy is associated swith many adverse perinatal outcomes, including stillbirth, macrosomia, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), development of hypertensive disorders, and cesarean deliveries. Hence, it is important to investigate and identify the optimal management of gestational diabetes.

Metformin, an oral biguanide, although studied for gestational diabetes treatment in phase 3 randomized clinical open-label trials, often is avoided in patients who are pregnant (with the exception of patients who have needle aversions, are financially unable to use insulin, or are unable to administer insulin safely).^1,2 Metformin is a highly effective first-line agent in the management of both prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, which begs us to question if there is a role for it in the management of gestational diabetes.

Details about the study

The study by Dunne and colleagues was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in a 1:1 parallel fashion at two institutions in Ireland from 2017–2022. The primary outcome assessed if treatment with metformin would reduce fasting blood glucose levels and the initiation of insulin among women diagnosed with gestational diabetes. A total of 510 participants enrolled in the study, with 268 receiving metformin (up to a maximum dose of 2,500 mg) at diagnosis and 267 receiving an identical placebo. Blood sugar levels were monitored 7 times a day, and medication adherence was assessed every 4 weeks.

Results. At 32 or 38 weeks’ gestation, 56.8% of patients in the metformin arm, and 63.7% of patients in the placebo arm required insulin or had fasting blood glucose levels above 5.1 mmol/L (91.8mg/dL), which was a statistically insignificant difference (P = .13). Although there was similarly no difference in the total amount of insulin used in each study group, the percentage of patients who required insulin initiation was decreased in the metformin arm (38.4% vs 51.1%; P = .004).

Study strengths and weaknesses

The authors conducted a well-designed double-blinded RCT—in both rural and tertiary care settings. Additionally, the study had an impressive 90% patient adherence rate for home blood glucose monitoring 7 times per day. The study arms were balanced for body mass index, as obesity is a known contributor to the development of gestational diabetes and response to insulin.

This study findings’ generalizability is limited across subpopulations given the lack of ethnic and racial diversity—the study population was 80% White. Additionally, utilization of the World Health Organization guidelines for diagnosing gestational diabetes, although adopted by most associations across the world, limits its application to areas of the world that use the National Diabetes Data Group or the Carpenter-Coustan diagnosis guidelines.^3,4 Furthermore, the diagnosis of gestational diabetes, which was based on 1 elevated value of a 2-hour glucose tolerance test, has limited scientific support, has not been proven to improve obstetric outcomes, and may increase health care costs when compared with the 2-step method.⁵ The criteria for insulin initiation in the trial was based on having 2 elevated measures of blood glucose during home glucose monitoring, a criteria that is much stricter than what is used in other countries or clinical practice. The trial authors concluded that use of metformin had a statistically significant reduction in neonates weighing > 4,000 g and > 90th% of weight, but they did not assess study group differences in neonatal skin fold thickness or anthropometric measurements, as reported in the Metformin in Gestational Diabetes trials.⁶ ●

Dunne F, Newman C, Alvarez-Iglesia A, et al. Early metformin in gestational diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2023;330:1547-1556. doi:10.1001/jama .2023.19869

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Gestational diabetes mellitus occurs in 4% to 7% of pregnancies, and the prevalence is likely to continue to increase given the rising rates of hypertension, obesity, advanced maternal age, and other medical comorbidities in pregnant persons in the United States.^1,2 Uncontrolled hyperglycemia in pregnancy is associated swith many adverse perinatal outcomes, including stillbirth, macrosomia, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), development of hypertensive disorders, and cesarean deliveries. Hence, it is important to investigate and identify the optimal management of gestational diabetes.

Metformin, an oral biguanide, although studied for gestational diabetes treatment in phase 3 randomized clinical open-label trials, often is avoided in patients who are pregnant (with the exception of patients who have needle aversions, are financially unable to use insulin, or are unable to administer insulin safely).^1,2 Metformin is a highly effective first-line agent in the management of both prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, which begs us to question if there is a role for it in the management of gestational diabetes.

Details about the study

The study by Dunne and colleagues was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in a 1:1 parallel fashion at two institutions in Ireland from 2017–2022. The primary outcome assessed if treatment with metformin would reduce fasting blood glucose levels and the initiation of insulin among women diagnosed with gestational diabetes. A total of 510 participants enrolled in the study, with 268 receiving metformin (up to a maximum dose of 2,500 mg) at diagnosis and 267 receiving an identical placebo. Blood sugar levels were monitored 7 times a day, and medication adherence was assessed every 4 weeks.

Results. At 32 or 38 weeks’ gestation, 56.8% of patients in the metformin arm, and 63.7% of patients in the placebo arm required insulin or had fasting blood glucose levels above 5.1 mmol/L (91.8mg/dL), which was a statistically insignificant difference (P = .13). Although there was similarly no difference in the total amount of insulin used in each study group, the percentage of patients who required insulin initiation was decreased in the metformin arm (38.4% vs 51.1%; P = .004).

Study strengths and weaknesses

The authors conducted a well-designed double-blinded RCT—in both rural and tertiary care settings. Additionally, the study had an impressive 90% patient adherence rate for home blood glucose monitoring 7 times per day. The study arms were balanced for body mass index, as obesity is a known contributor to the development of gestational diabetes and response to insulin.

This study findings’ generalizability is limited across subpopulations given the lack of ethnic and racial diversity—the study population was 80% White. Additionally, utilization of the World Health Organization guidelines for diagnosing gestational diabetes, although adopted by most associations across the world, limits its application to areas of the world that use the National Diabetes Data Group or the Carpenter-Coustan diagnosis guidelines.^3,4 Furthermore, the diagnosis of gestational diabetes, which was based on 1 elevated value of a 2-hour glucose tolerance test, has limited scientific support, has not been proven to improve obstetric outcomes, and may increase health care costs when compared with the 2-step method.⁵ The criteria for insulin initiation in the trial was based on having 2 elevated measures of blood glucose during home glucose monitoring, a criteria that is much stricter than what is used in other countries or clinical practice. The trial authors concluded that use of metformin had a statistically significant reduction in neonates weighing > 4,000 g and > 90th% of weight, but they did not assess study group differences in neonatal skin fold thickness or anthropometric measurements, as reported in the Metformin in Gestational Diabetes trials.⁶ ●

Dunne F, Newman C, Alvarez-Iglesia A, et al. Early metformin in gestational diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2023;330:1547-1556. doi:10.1001/jama .2023.19869

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Gestational diabetes mellitus occurs in 4% to 7% of pregnancies, and the prevalence is likely to continue to increase given the rising rates of hypertension, obesity, advanced maternal age, and other medical comorbidities in pregnant persons in the United States.^1,2 Uncontrolled hyperglycemia in pregnancy is associated swith many adverse perinatal outcomes, including stillbirth, macrosomia, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), development of hypertensive disorders, and cesarean deliveries. Hence, it is important to investigate and identify the optimal management of gestational diabetes.

Metformin, an oral biguanide, although studied for gestational diabetes treatment in phase 3 randomized clinical open-label trials, often is avoided in patients who are pregnant (with the exception of patients who have needle aversions, are financially unable to use insulin, or are unable to administer insulin safely).^1,2 Metformin is a highly effective first-line agent in the management of both prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, which begs us to question if there is a role for it in the management of gestational diabetes.

Details about the study

The study by Dunne and colleagues was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in a 1:1 parallel fashion at two institutions in Ireland from 2017–2022. The primary outcome assessed if treatment with metformin would reduce fasting blood glucose levels and the initiation of insulin among women diagnosed with gestational diabetes. A total of 510 participants enrolled in the study, with 268 receiving metformin (up to a maximum dose of 2,500 mg) at diagnosis and 267 receiving an identical placebo. Blood sugar levels were monitored 7 times a day, and medication adherence was assessed every 4 weeks.

Results. At 32 or 38 weeks’ gestation, 56.8% of patients in the metformin arm, and 63.7% of patients in the placebo arm required insulin or had fasting blood glucose levels above 5.1 mmol/L (91.8mg/dL), which was a statistically insignificant difference (P = .13). Although there was similarly no difference in the total amount of insulin used in each study group, the percentage of patients who required insulin initiation was decreased in the metformin arm (38.4% vs 51.1%; P = .004).

Study strengths and weaknesses

The authors conducted a well-designed double-blinded RCT—in both rural and tertiary care settings. Additionally, the study had an impressive 90% patient adherence rate for home blood glucose monitoring 7 times per day. The study arms were balanced for body mass index, as obesity is a known contributor to the development of gestational diabetes and response to insulin.

This study findings’ generalizability is limited across subpopulations given the lack of ethnic and racial diversity—the study population was 80% White. Additionally, utilization of the World Health Organization guidelines for diagnosing gestational diabetes, although adopted by most associations across the world, limits its application to areas of the world that use the National Diabetes Data Group or the Carpenter-Coustan diagnosis guidelines.^3,4 Furthermore, the diagnosis of gestational diabetes, which was based on 1 elevated value of a 2-hour glucose tolerance test, has limited scientific support, has not been proven to improve obstetric outcomes, and may increase health care costs when compared with the 2-step method.⁵ The criteria for insulin initiation in the trial was based on having 2 elevated measures of blood glucose during home glucose monitoring, a criteria that is much stricter than what is used in other countries or clinical practice. The trial authors concluded that use of metformin had a statistically significant reduction in neonates weighing > 4,000 g and > 90th% of weight, but they did not assess study group differences in neonatal skin fold thickness or anthropometric measurements, as reported in the Metformin in Gestational Diabetes trials.⁶ ●

In the United States there is an epidemic of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, with 16% of pregnant people being diagnosed with preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, chronic hypertension, preeclampsia superimposed on chronic hypertension, HELLP, or eclampsia.¹ Preeclampsia with severe features increases the maternal risk for stroke, pulmonary edema, kidney injury, abruption, and fetal and maternal death. Preeclampsia also increases the fetal risk for growth restriction, oligohydramnios, and preterm birth.

Angiogenic factors and the pathophysiology of preeclampsia—From bench to bedside

The pathophysiology of preeclampsia is not fully characterized, but a leading theory is that placental ischemia causes increased placental production of anti-angiogenesis factors and a decrease in placental production of pro-angiogenesis factors.^2-4 Clinical studies support the theory that preeclampsia is associated with an increase in placental production of anti-angiogenesis factors, including soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and soluble endoglin, and a decrease in the placental production of pro-angiogenesis factors, including placental growth factor (PlGF).^5-15

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently approved an assay for the measurement of sFlt-1 (Brahms sFlt-1 Kryptor) and PlGF (Brahms sFlt-1 Kryptor) (Thermo Fisher Scientific; Waltham, Massachusetts).¹⁶ This editorial focuses on the current and evolving indications for the measurement of sFlt-1 and PlGF in obstetric practice.

FDA approval of a preeclampsia blood test

The FDA approval of the tests to measure sFlt-1 and PlGF is narrowly tailored and focused on using the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio to assess the risk of progression to preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks among hospitalized patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy with a singleton pregnancy between 23 weeks 0 days (23w0d) and 34w6d gestation.¹⁶ The test is meant to be used in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical assessment. The FDA advises that the test results should not be used to diagnose preeclampsia, nor should they be used to determine the timing of delivery or timing of patient discharge.¹⁶ The sFlt-1 and PIGF measurements are both reported as pg/mL, and the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio has no units.

The FDA approval is based on clinical studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of the test in predicting the progression of a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy to preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks of testing. In one study, the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was measured in 556 pregnant patients with a singleton pregnancy who were between 23w0d and 34w6d gestation and hospitalized with a hypertensivedisorder in pregnancy without severe features at study enrollment.¹⁵ Those patients receiving intravenous heparin were excluded because of the effect of heparin on sFlt-1 levels. Participants’ mean age was 31.7 years, and their mean gestational age was 30w3d. The patients’ mean body mass index (BMI) was 34.2 kg/m², with mean maximal blood pressure (BP) at enrollment of 159 mm Hg systolic and 95 mm Hg diastolic.

In this cohort, 31% of enrolled patients progressed to preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks. At enrollment, the median sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was greater among the patients who progressed to preeclampsia with severe features than among those who did not have progression to preeclampsia with severe features (291 vs 7). An elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (determined to be a ratio ≥ 40) predicted that patients would progress to severe preeclampsiawith severe features—with positive and negative predictive values of 65% and 96%, respectively. Among the subgroup of patients with a history of chronic hypertension, an sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥ 40 had positive and negative predictive values of 59% and 94%, respectively. Focusing the analysis on patients who self-reported their race as Black, representing 30% of the cohort, the positive and negative predictive values for a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥ 40 were 66% and 99%, respectively.¹⁵

Receiver-operating curve analyses were used to compare the predictive performance of sFlt-1/PlGF measurement versus standard clinical factors and standard laboratory results, including systolic and diastolic BP; levels of aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and creatinine; and platelet count.¹⁵ The area under the curve for predicting progression to preeclampsia with severe features was much greater for the sFlt-1/PlGF test (0.92) than for systolic (0.67) and diastolic BP (0.70), AST level (0.66), ALT level (0.61), creatinine level (0.65), and platelet count (0.57).¹⁵ These results demonstrate that measuring sFlt-1/PlGF ratios is a much better way to predict the progression of preeclampsia to severe disease than measuring standard clinical and laboratory results.

Patients with a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥ 40 had higher rates of adverse maternal outcomes including severe hypertension, abruption, stroke, eclampsia, pulmonary edema, thrombocytopenia, low platelets, and/or coagulation disorder, than those patients with a ratio < 40, (16.1% vs 2.8%, respectively; relative risk [RR], 5.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8 to 12.2).¹⁵ Adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes (including fetal death, small for gestational age and early delivery due to progression of disease) were more common among patients with a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio of ≥ 40 (80% vs 26%; RR, 3.1; 95% CI, 2.5–3.8).¹⁵ Many other studies support the hypothesis that the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is predictive of adverse outcomes among patients with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy.^6-15

Applying the bottom-line study findings. Patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy and a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio < 40 have a low risk of progressing to preeclampsia with severe features over the following 2 weeks, with a negative predictive value of 96%. The remarkably high negative predictive value of a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio < 40 will help obstetricians generate a care plan that optimizes the use of limited health care resources. Conversely, about two-thirds of patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy and a sFlt-1/PlGF test ≥ 40 will progress to preeclampsia with severe features and may need to prepare for a preterm delivery.

Continue to: Clinical utility of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in obstetric triage...

Measurement of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio may help guide clinical care among patients referred to obstetric triage or admitted to the hospital for the evaluation of suspected preeclampsia. In one study, 402 patients with a singleton pregnancy referred to the hospital for evaluation of suspected preeclampsia, had a standard evaluation plus measurement of an sFlt-1/PlGF ratio.¹³ The clinicians caring for the patients did not have access to the sFlt-1/PlGF test results. In this cohort, 16% of the patients developed preeclampsia with severe features in the 2 weeks following the initial assessment in triage. In this cohort, a normal sFlt-1/PlGF ratio reliably predicted which patients were not going to develop preeclampsia with severe features over the following 2 weeks, with a negative predictive value of 98%. Among the patients with an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio, however, the positive predictive value of the test was 47% for developing preeclampsia with severe features within the 2 weeks following initial evaluation. Among patients < 34 weeks’ gestation, an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio had a positive predictive value of 65%, and a negative predictive value of 98%. Other studies also have reported that the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is of value for assessing the risk for progression to preeclampsia with severe features in patients being evaluated for suspected preeclampsia.^6,17,18

In obstetric triage, it is difficult to predict the clinical course of patients referred for the evaluation of suspected preeclampsia based on BP measurements or standard laboratory tests. The sFlt-1/PlGF test will help clinicians identify patients at low and high risk of progressing to preeclampsia with severe features.¹⁹ Patients with a normal sFlt-1/PlGF test are at low risk of developing preeclampsia with severe features over the following 2 weeks. Patients with an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF test are at higher risk of progressing to preeclampsia with severe features and may warrant more intensive obstetric care. An enhanced care program might include:

• patient education
• remote monitoring of BP or hospitalization
• more frequent assessment of fetal well-being and growth
• administration of glucocorticoids to advance fetal maturity, if indicated by the gestational age.

Twin pregnancy complicated by preeclampsia

Twin pregnancy is associated with a high risk of developing preeclampsia and fetal growth restriction. For patients with a twin pregnancy and a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy, an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is associated with the need for delivery within 2 weeks and an increased rate of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. In a retrospective study involving 164 patients with twin pregnancy first evaluated for suspected preeclampsia at a median gestational age of 33w4d, the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was positively correlated with progression of preeclampsia without severe features to severe features within 2 weeks.²⁰ In this cohort, at the initial evaluation for suspected preeclampsia, the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was lower among patients who did not need delivery within 2 weeks compared with those who were delivered within 2 weeks, 24 versus 84 (P<.001). The mean sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was 99 among patients who needed delivery within 1 week following the initial evaluation for suspected preeclampsia. Among patients who delivered within 1 week of presentation, the reasons for delivery were the development of severe hypertension, severe dyspnea, placental abruption, rising levels of serum liver function enzymes, and/or onset of the HELLP syndrome.

An important finding in this study is that a normal sFlt-1/PlGF ratio predicted that the patient would not need delivery within 2 weeks, with a negative predictive value of 96%. Other studies also have reported that an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in twin pregnancies is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes and early delivery.^21-23 An adequately powered multicenter study of twin pregnancies is needed to identify the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio associated with the greatest combined negative and positive predictive values.

The sFlt-1/PlGF test is a welcome addition to OB care

FDA approval of laboratory tests to measure circulating levels of sFlt-1 and PlGF will advance obstetric practice by identifying patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy who are at low and high risk of developing preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks of the test. No laboratory test can replace the clinical judgment of obstetricians who are responsible for balancing the maternal and fetal risks that can occur in the management of a patient with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy. The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is highly dependable for identifying those patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy who will not progress to severe disease within 2 weeks. The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio also identifies those patients with preeclampsia who are most likely to have adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. The patients with an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio may need more intensive antenatal care and consideration for transfer to a health system with a higher level of maternal and neonatal services. The sFlt-1/PlGF test is a welcome addition to obstetric care because it will improve the precision of our management of pregnant patients with hypertension. ●

rbarbieri@mdedge.com

In the United States there is an epidemic of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, with 16% of pregnant people being diagnosed with preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, chronic hypertension, preeclampsia superimposed on chronic hypertension, HELLP, or eclampsia.¹ Preeclampsia with severe features increases the maternal risk for stroke, pulmonary edema, kidney injury, abruption, and fetal and maternal death. Preeclampsia also increases the fetal risk for growth restriction, oligohydramnios, and preterm birth.

Angiogenic factors and the pathophysiology of preeclampsia—From bench to bedside

The pathophysiology of preeclampsia is not fully characterized, but a leading theory is that placental ischemia causes increased placental production of anti-angiogenesis factors and a decrease in placental production of pro-angiogenesis factors.^2-4 Clinical studies support the theory that preeclampsia is associated with an increase in placental production of anti-angiogenesis factors, including soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and soluble endoglin, and a decrease in the placental production of pro-angiogenesis factors, including placental growth factor (PlGF).^5-15

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently approved an assay for the measurement of sFlt-1 (Brahms sFlt-1 Kryptor) and PlGF (Brahms sFlt-1 Kryptor) (Thermo Fisher Scientific; Waltham, Massachusetts).¹⁶ This editorial focuses on the current and evolving indications for the measurement of sFlt-1 and PlGF in obstetric practice.

FDA approval of a preeclampsia blood test

The FDA approval of the tests to measure sFlt-1 and PlGF is narrowly tailored and focused on using the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio to assess the risk of progression to preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks among hospitalized patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy with a singleton pregnancy between 23 weeks 0 days (23w0d) and 34w6d gestation.¹⁶ The test is meant to be used in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical assessment. The FDA advises that the test results should not be used to diagnose preeclampsia, nor should they be used to determine the timing of delivery or timing of patient discharge.¹⁶ The sFlt-1 and PIGF measurements are both reported as pg/mL, and the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio has no units.

The FDA approval is based on clinical studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of the test in predicting the progression of a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy to preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks of testing. In one study, the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was measured in 556 pregnant patients with a singleton pregnancy who were between 23w0d and 34w6d gestation and hospitalized with a hypertensivedisorder in pregnancy without severe features at study enrollment.¹⁵ Those patients receiving intravenous heparin were excluded because of the effect of heparin on sFlt-1 levels. Participants’ mean age was 31.7 years, and their mean gestational age was 30w3d. The patients’ mean body mass index (BMI) was 34.2 kg/m², with mean maximal blood pressure (BP) at enrollment of 159 mm Hg systolic and 95 mm Hg diastolic.

In this cohort, 31% of enrolled patients progressed to preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks. At enrollment, the median sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was greater among the patients who progressed to preeclampsia with severe features than among those who did not have progression to preeclampsia with severe features (291 vs 7). An elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (determined to be a ratio ≥ 40) predicted that patients would progress to severe preeclampsiawith severe features—with positive and negative predictive values of 65% and 96%, respectively. Among the subgroup of patients with a history of chronic hypertension, an sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥ 40 had positive and negative predictive values of 59% and 94%, respectively. Focusing the analysis on patients who self-reported their race as Black, representing 30% of the cohort, the positive and negative predictive values for a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥ 40 were 66% and 99%, respectively.¹⁵

Receiver-operating curve analyses were used to compare the predictive performance of sFlt-1/PlGF measurement versus standard clinical factors and standard laboratory results, including systolic and diastolic BP; levels of aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and creatinine; and platelet count.¹⁵ The area under the curve for predicting progression to preeclampsia with severe features was much greater for the sFlt-1/PlGF test (0.92) than for systolic (0.67) and diastolic BP (0.70), AST level (0.66), ALT level (0.61), creatinine level (0.65), and platelet count (0.57).¹⁵ These results demonstrate that measuring sFlt-1/PlGF ratios is a much better way to predict the progression of preeclampsia to severe disease than measuring standard clinical and laboratory results.

Patients with a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥ 40 had higher rates of adverse maternal outcomes including severe hypertension, abruption, stroke, eclampsia, pulmonary edema, thrombocytopenia, low platelets, and/or coagulation disorder, than those patients with a ratio < 40, (16.1% vs 2.8%, respectively; relative risk [RR], 5.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8 to 12.2).¹⁵ Adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes (including fetal death, small for gestational age and early delivery due to progression of disease) were more common among patients with a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio of ≥ 40 (80% vs 26%; RR, 3.1; 95% CI, 2.5–3.8).¹⁵ Many other studies support the hypothesis that the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is predictive of adverse outcomes among patients with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy.^6-15

Applying the bottom-line study findings. Patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy and a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio < 40 have a low risk of progressing to preeclampsia with severe features over the following 2 weeks, with a negative predictive value of 96%. The remarkably high negative predictive value of a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio < 40 will help obstetricians generate a care plan that optimizes the use of limited health care resources. Conversely, about two-thirds of patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy and a sFlt-1/PlGF test ≥ 40 will progress to preeclampsia with severe features and may need to prepare for a preterm delivery.

Continue to: Clinical utility of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in obstetric triage...

Measurement of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio may help guide clinical care among patients referred to obstetric triage or admitted to the hospital for the evaluation of suspected preeclampsia. In one study, 402 patients with a singleton pregnancy referred to the hospital for evaluation of suspected preeclampsia, had a standard evaluation plus measurement of an sFlt-1/PlGF ratio.¹³ The clinicians caring for the patients did not have access to the sFlt-1/PlGF test results. In this cohort, 16% of the patients developed preeclampsia with severe features in the 2 weeks following the initial assessment in triage. In this cohort, a normal sFlt-1/PlGF ratio reliably predicted which patients were not going to develop preeclampsia with severe features over the following 2 weeks, with a negative predictive value of 98%. Among the patients with an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio, however, the positive predictive value of the test was 47% for developing preeclampsia with severe features within the 2 weeks following initial evaluation. Among patients < 34 weeks’ gestation, an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio had a positive predictive value of 65%, and a negative predictive value of 98%. Other studies also have reported that the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is of value for assessing the risk for progression to preeclampsia with severe features in patients being evaluated for suspected preeclampsia.^6,17,18

In obstetric triage, it is difficult to predict the clinical course of patients referred for the evaluation of suspected preeclampsia based on BP measurements or standard laboratory tests. The sFlt-1/PlGF test will help clinicians identify patients at low and high risk of progressing to preeclampsia with severe features.¹⁹ Patients with a normal sFlt-1/PlGF test are at low risk of developing preeclampsia with severe features over the following 2 weeks. Patients with an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF test are at higher risk of progressing to preeclampsia with severe features and may warrant more intensive obstetric care. An enhanced care program might include:

• patient education
• remote monitoring of BP or hospitalization
• more frequent assessment of fetal well-being and growth
• administration of glucocorticoids to advance fetal maturity, if indicated by the gestational age.

Twin pregnancy complicated by preeclampsia

Twin pregnancy is associated with a high risk of developing preeclampsia and fetal growth restriction. For patients with a twin pregnancy and a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy, an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is associated with the need for delivery within 2 weeks and an increased rate of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. In a retrospective study involving 164 patients with twin pregnancy first evaluated for suspected preeclampsia at a median gestational age of 33w4d, the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was positively correlated with progression of preeclampsia without severe features to severe features within 2 weeks.²⁰ In this cohort, at the initial evaluation for suspected preeclampsia, the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was lower among patients who did not need delivery within 2 weeks compared with those who were delivered within 2 weeks, 24 versus 84 (P<.001). The mean sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was 99 among patients who needed delivery within 1 week following the initial evaluation for suspected preeclampsia. Among patients who delivered within 1 week of presentation, the reasons for delivery were the development of severe hypertension, severe dyspnea, placental abruption, rising levels of serum liver function enzymes, and/or onset of the HELLP syndrome.

An important finding in this study is that a normal sFlt-1/PlGF ratio predicted that the patient would not need delivery within 2 weeks, with a negative predictive value of 96%. Other studies also have reported that an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in twin pregnancies is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes and early delivery.^21-23 An adequately powered multicenter study of twin pregnancies is needed to identify the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio associated with the greatest combined negative and positive predictive values.

The sFlt-1/PlGF test is a welcome addition to OB care

FDA approval of laboratory tests to measure circulating levels of sFlt-1 and PlGF will advance obstetric practice by identifying patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy who are at low and high risk of developing preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks of the test. No laboratory test can replace the clinical judgment of obstetricians who are responsible for balancing the maternal and fetal risks that can occur in the management of a patient with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy. The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is highly dependable for identifying those patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy who will not progress to severe disease within 2 weeks. The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio also identifies those patients with preeclampsia who are most likely to have adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. The patients with an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio may need more intensive antenatal care and consideration for transfer to a health system with a higher level of maternal and neonatal services. The sFlt-1/PlGF test is a welcome addition to obstetric care because it will improve the precision of our management of pregnant patients with hypertension. ●

rbarbieri@mdedge.com

In the United States there is an epidemic of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, with 16% of pregnant people being diagnosed with preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, chronic hypertension, preeclampsia superimposed on chronic hypertension, HELLP, or eclampsia.¹ Preeclampsia with severe features increases the maternal risk for stroke, pulmonary edema, kidney injury, abruption, and fetal and maternal death. Preeclampsia also increases the fetal risk for growth restriction, oligohydramnios, and preterm birth.

Angiogenic factors and the pathophysiology of preeclampsia—From bench to bedside

The pathophysiology of preeclampsia is not fully characterized, but a leading theory is that placental ischemia causes increased placental production of anti-angiogenesis factors and a decrease in placental production of pro-angiogenesis factors.^2-4 Clinical studies support the theory that preeclampsia is associated with an increase in placental production of anti-angiogenesis factors, including soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and soluble endoglin, and a decrease in the placental production of pro-angiogenesis factors, including placental growth factor (PlGF).^5-15

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently approved an assay for the measurement of sFlt-1 (Brahms sFlt-1 Kryptor) and PlGF (Brahms sFlt-1 Kryptor) (Thermo Fisher Scientific; Waltham, Massachusetts).¹⁶ This editorial focuses on the current and evolving indications for the measurement of sFlt-1 and PlGF in obstetric practice.

FDA approval of a preeclampsia blood test

The FDA approval of the tests to measure sFlt-1 and PlGF is narrowly tailored and focused on using the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio to assess the risk of progression to preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks among hospitalized patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy with a singleton pregnancy between 23 weeks 0 days (23w0d) and 34w6d gestation.¹⁶ The test is meant to be used in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical assessment. The FDA advises that the test results should not be used to diagnose preeclampsia, nor should they be used to determine the timing of delivery or timing of patient discharge.¹⁶ The sFlt-1 and PIGF measurements are both reported as pg/mL, and the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio has no units.

The FDA approval is based on clinical studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of the test in predicting the progression of a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy to preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks of testing. In one study, the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was measured in 556 pregnant patients with a singleton pregnancy who were between 23w0d and 34w6d gestation and hospitalized with a hypertensivedisorder in pregnancy without severe features at study enrollment.¹⁵ Those patients receiving intravenous heparin were excluded because of the effect of heparin on sFlt-1 levels. Participants’ mean age was 31.7 years, and their mean gestational age was 30w3d. The patients’ mean body mass index (BMI) was 34.2 kg/m², with mean maximal blood pressure (BP) at enrollment of 159 mm Hg systolic and 95 mm Hg diastolic.

In this cohort, 31% of enrolled patients progressed to preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks. At enrollment, the median sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was greater among the patients who progressed to preeclampsia with severe features than among those who did not have progression to preeclampsia with severe features (291 vs 7). An elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (determined to be a ratio ≥ 40) predicted that patients would progress to severe preeclampsiawith severe features—with positive and negative predictive values of 65% and 96%, respectively. Among the subgroup of patients with a history of chronic hypertension, an sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥ 40 had positive and negative predictive values of 59% and 94%, respectively. Focusing the analysis on patients who self-reported their race as Black, representing 30% of the cohort, the positive and negative predictive values for a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥ 40 were 66% and 99%, respectively.¹⁵

Receiver-operating curve analyses were used to compare the predictive performance of sFlt-1/PlGF measurement versus standard clinical factors and standard laboratory results, including systolic and diastolic BP; levels of aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and creatinine; and platelet count.¹⁵ The area under the curve for predicting progression to preeclampsia with severe features was much greater for the sFlt-1/PlGF test (0.92) than for systolic (0.67) and diastolic BP (0.70), AST level (0.66), ALT level (0.61), creatinine level (0.65), and platelet count (0.57).¹⁵ These results demonstrate that measuring sFlt-1/PlGF ratios is a much better way to predict the progression of preeclampsia to severe disease than measuring standard clinical and laboratory results.

Patients with a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥ 40 had higher rates of adverse maternal outcomes including severe hypertension, abruption, stroke, eclampsia, pulmonary edema, thrombocytopenia, low platelets, and/or coagulation disorder, than those patients with a ratio < 40, (16.1% vs 2.8%, respectively; relative risk [RR], 5.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8 to 12.2).¹⁵ Adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes (including fetal death, small for gestational age and early delivery due to progression of disease) were more common among patients with a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio of ≥ 40 (80% vs 26%; RR, 3.1; 95% CI, 2.5–3.8).¹⁵ Many other studies support the hypothesis that the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is predictive of adverse outcomes among patients with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy.^6-15

Applying the bottom-line study findings. Patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy and a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio < 40 have a low risk of progressing to preeclampsia with severe features over the following 2 weeks, with a negative predictive value of 96%. The remarkably high negative predictive value of a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio < 40 will help obstetricians generate a care plan that optimizes the use of limited health care resources. Conversely, about two-thirds of patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy and a sFlt-1/PlGF test ≥ 40 will progress to preeclampsia with severe features and may need to prepare for a preterm delivery.

Continue to: Clinical utility of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in obstetric triage...

Measurement of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio may help guide clinical care among patients referred to obstetric triage or admitted to the hospital for the evaluation of suspected preeclampsia. In one study, 402 patients with a singleton pregnancy referred to the hospital for evaluation of suspected preeclampsia, had a standard evaluation plus measurement of an sFlt-1/PlGF ratio.¹³ The clinicians caring for the patients did not have access to the sFlt-1/PlGF test results. In this cohort, 16% of the patients developed preeclampsia with severe features in the 2 weeks following the initial assessment in triage. In this cohort, a normal sFlt-1/PlGF ratio reliably predicted which patients were not going to develop preeclampsia with severe features over the following 2 weeks, with a negative predictive value of 98%. Among the patients with an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio, however, the positive predictive value of the test was 47% for developing preeclampsia with severe features within the 2 weeks following initial evaluation. Among patients < 34 weeks’ gestation, an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio had a positive predictive value of 65%, and a negative predictive value of 98%. Other studies also have reported that the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is of value for assessing the risk for progression to preeclampsia with severe features in patients being evaluated for suspected preeclampsia.^6,17,18

In obstetric triage, it is difficult to predict the clinical course of patients referred for the evaluation of suspected preeclampsia based on BP measurements or standard laboratory tests. The sFlt-1/PlGF test will help clinicians identify patients at low and high risk of progressing to preeclampsia with severe features.¹⁹ Patients with a normal sFlt-1/PlGF test are at low risk of developing preeclampsia with severe features over the following 2 weeks. Patients with an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF test are at higher risk of progressing to preeclampsia with severe features and may warrant more intensive obstetric care. An enhanced care program might include:

• patient education
• remote monitoring of BP or hospitalization
• more frequent assessment of fetal well-being and growth
• administration of glucocorticoids to advance fetal maturity, if indicated by the gestational age.

Twin pregnancy complicated by preeclampsia

Twin pregnancy is associated with a high risk of developing preeclampsia and fetal growth restriction. For patients with a twin pregnancy and a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy, an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is associated with the need for delivery within 2 weeks and an increased rate of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. In a retrospective study involving 164 patients with twin pregnancy first evaluated for suspected preeclampsia at a median gestational age of 33w4d, the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was positively correlated with progression of preeclampsia without severe features to severe features within 2 weeks.²⁰ In this cohort, at the initial evaluation for suspected preeclampsia, the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was lower among patients who did not need delivery within 2 weeks compared with those who were delivered within 2 weeks, 24 versus 84 (P<.001). The mean sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was 99 among patients who needed delivery within 1 week following the initial evaluation for suspected preeclampsia. Among patients who delivered within 1 week of presentation, the reasons for delivery were the development of severe hypertension, severe dyspnea, placental abruption, rising levels of serum liver function enzymes, and/or onset of the HELLP syndrome.

An important finding in this study is that a normal sFlt-1/PlGF ratio predicted that the patient would not need delivery within 2 weeks, with a negative predictive value of 96%. Other studies also have reported that an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in twin pregnancies is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes and early delivery.^21-23 An adequately powered multicenter study of twin pregnancies is needed to identify the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio associated with the greatest combined negative and positive predictive values.

The sFlt-1/PlGF test is a welcome addition to OB care

FDA approval of laboratory tests to measure circulating levels of sFlt-1 and PlGF will advance obstetric practice by identifying patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy who are at low and high risk of developing preeclampsia with severe features within 2 weeks of the test. No laboratory test can replace the clinical judgment of obstetricians who are responsible for balancing the maternal and fetal risks that can occur in the management of a patient with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy. The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is highly dependable for identifying those patients with a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy who will not progress to severe disease within 2 weeks. The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio also identifies those patients with preeclampsia who are most likely to have adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. The patients with an elevated sFlt-1/PlGF ratio may need more intensive antenatal care and consideration for transfer to a health system with a higher level of maternal and neonatal services. The sFlt-1/PlGF test is a welcome addition to obstetric care because it will improve the precision of our management of pregnant patients with hypertension. ●

rbarbieri@mdedge.com

San Antonio – Taxane exposure during pregnancy appears to be safe for mothers and offspring, according to a new retrospective cohort analysis. The findings shed light on a relatively unstudied topic. “Our cohort with 103 patients represents the most extensive study to date, and our main goal was to have homogeneous reporting of adverse events,” Ana Ferrigno Guajardo, MD, said in an interview. She presented the results at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Breast cancer during pregnancy is a very challenging clinical situation as the expected antineoplastic effects of treatment must be carefully balanced against potential detrimental consequences on the developing fetus,” said Dr. Guajardo. She is a resident physician at Yale University School of Medicine.

Anthracycline-based chemotherapy agents are generally used during pregnancy because there is more safety data available for them, but some studies have shown that taxanes may have better efficacy in some clinical situations. “Cohort studies that have been done in the past [show] that taxane use is mostly deferred to the postpartum period, and we are not really sure of the impact that can have on survival in patients postponing treatment,” said Dr. Guajardo.

There are potential safety concerns with taxanes because neonates lack the cytochrome enzymes to metabolize the drugs, which creates a theoretical risk of adverse effects due to prolonged activity. On the other hand, pregnant women metabolize taxanes faster, and there are placental barriers that can inhibit high molecular weight molecules like taxanes from reaching the fetus, according to Dr. Guajardo.

In addition to pregnancy outcomes, the researchers followed 28 infants, and found that 87% were found to be completely healthy, “so we were relatively reassured. But of course we think that there’s a need for prospective studies that validate our findings regarding the safety taxanes,” said Dr. Guajardo.

Although there is no direct comparison group, the findings correlate well with studies of the general population and other chemotherapy agents. “We have large cohorts with mostly anthracycline-based chemotherapy agents during pregnancy that we can compare our results to, and overall, we were reassured that the prevalence of complications that we found in our cohort was very similar or even lower to those reported in the literature with patients treated with anthracycline-based therapy,” said Dr. Guajardo.

Compared with the general population, the team found higher rates of preterm births, neonatal ICU admissions, and premature membrane rupture, and infants that are small for gestational age. However, with the exception of the latter, all of these risks have been seen in pregnant women treated with other types of chemotherapy. “Perhaps it would be interesting to see if the incidence of small for gestational age neonates might be a bit higher in this population when compared to anthracycline-based therapy agents, but that does require a study that has a comparator group,” said Dr. Guajardo.

The researchers recruited 103 women with an average age of 34 years from 10 centers in 6 countries: United States, France, Spain, Mexico, Italy, and Costa Rica. The great majority were also treated with anthracyclines during gestation, and nearly all (97%) were treated with paclitaxel. The live birth rate was 98%, and 43.4% were preterm, 24% were small for gestational age, 16% were admitted to the neonate ICU, and 12.5% had hyperbilirubinemia.

Obstetric complications included intrauterine growth restriction (9%), preterm premature rupture of membranes (5%), gestational diabetes mellitus (5%), hypertensive disorders (4%), and pregnancy loss (2%).

After the presentation, Virginia Borges, MD, professor of medical oncology at University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, served as a discussant.

“Highlights of this study [include] that it is an international cohort from over six countries with over 100 cases of women included specifically focusing on the use of paclitaxel. They demonstrated safe outcomes for the pregnancies and the mothers,” Dr. Borges said during her presentation.

She went on to highlight several key points that physicians should consider when treating pregnancy-related breast cancer. “We want to achieve prepartum treatment wherever feasible to tackle that cancer before delivery of the child to prevent a pregnancy-related breast cancer from potentially turning into a postpartum breast cancer,” she said.

“If the tumor is ER+/HER2-, we now see we can safely give anthracyclines and taxanes from 12 to about 35 weeks of gestation. We don’t want to get too close to the delivery with chemotherapy. If a patient is HER2+, I prefer to give the anthracycline portion while the person is pregnant and then after delivery incorporate the taxane with the HER2 targeted therapies as there’s some older data showing concurrent therapy looks a bit better than sequential. In triple negative breast cancer, again I prefer to give the anthracycline and delay the taxane and carboplatin to overlap with immunotherapy so we are getting the necessary synergy there as well,” Dr. Borges added.

Dr. Guajardo has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Borges has consulted for SeaGen, Gilead, and AstraZeneca, and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Olema, and SeaGen.

San Antonio – Taxane exposure during pregnancy appears to be safe for mothers and offspring, according to a new retrospective cohort analysis. The findings shed light on a relatively unstudied topic. “Our cohort with 103 patients represents the most extensive study to date, and our main goal was to have homogeneous reporting of adverse events,” Ana Ferrigno Guajardo, MD, said in an interview. She presented the results at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Breast cancer during pregnancy is a very challenging clinical situation as the expected antineoplastic effects of treatment must be carefully balanced against potential detrimental consequences on the developing fetus,” said Dr. Guajardo. She is a resident physician at Yale University School of Medicine.

Anthracycline-based chemotherapy agents are generally used during pregnancy because there is more safety data available for them, but some studies have shown that taxanes may have better efficacy in some clinical situations. “Cohort studies that have been done in the past [show] that taxane use is mostly deferred to the postpartum period, and we are not really sure of the impact that can have on survival in patients postponing treatment,” said Dr. Guajardo.

There are potential safety concerns with taxanes because neonates lack the cytochrome enzymes to metabolize the drugs, which creates a theoretical risk of adverse effects due to prolonged activity. On the other hand, pregnant women metabolize taxanes faster, and there are placental barriers that can inhibit high molecular weight molecules like taxanes from reaching the fetus, according to Dr. Guajardo.

In addition to pregnancy outcomes, the researchers followed 28 infants, and found that 87% were found to be completely healthy, “so we were relatively reassured. But of course we think that there’s a need for prospective studies that validate our findings regarding the safety taxanes,” said Dr. Guajardo.

Although there is no direct comparison group, the findings correlate well with studies of the general population and other chemotherapy agents. “We have large cohorts with mostly anthracycline-based chemotherapy agents during pregnancy that we can compare our results to, and overall, we were reassured that the prevalence of complications that we found in our cohort was very similar or even lower to those reported in the literature with patients treated with anthracycline-based therapy,” said Dr. Guajardo.

Compared with the general population, the team found higher rates of preterm births, neonatal ICU admissions, and premature membrane rupture, and infants that are small for gestational age. However, with the exception of the latter, all of these risks have been seen in pregnant women treated with other types of chemotherapy. “Perhaps it would be interesting to see if the incidence of small for gestational age neonates might be a bit higher in this population when compared to anthracycline-based therapy agents, but that does require a study that has a comparator group,” said Dr. Guajardo.

The researchers recruited 103 women with an average age of 34 years from 10 centers in 6 countries: United States, France, Spain, Mexico, Italy, and Costa Rica. The great majority were also treated with anthracyclines during gestation, and nearly all (97%) were treated with paclitaxel. The live birth rate was 98%, and 43.4% were preterm, 24% were small for gestational age, 16% were admitted to the neonate ICU, and 12.5% had hyperbilirubinemia.

Obstetric complications included intrauterine growth restriction (9%), preterm premature rupture of membranes (5%), gestational diabetes mellitus (5%), hypertensive disorders (4%), and pregnancy loss (2%).

After the presentation, Virginia Borges, MD, professor of medical oncology at University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, served as a discussant.

“Highlights of this study [include] that it is an international cohort from over six countries with over 100 cases of women included specifically focusing on the use of paclitaxel. They demonstrated safe outcomes for the pregnancies and the mothers,” Dr. Borges said during her presentation.

She went on to highlight several key points that physicians should consider when treating pregnancy-related breast cancer. “We want to achieve prepartum treatment wherever feasible to tackle that cancer before delivery of the child to prevent a pregnancy-related breast cancer from potentially turning into a postpartum breast cancer,” she said.

“If the tumor is ER+/HER2-, we now see we can safely give anthracyclines and taxanes from 12 to about 35 weeks of gestation. We don’t want to get too close to the delivery with chemotherapy. If a patient is HER2+, I prefer to give the anthracycline portion while the person is pregnant and then after delivery incorporate the taxane with the HER2 targeted therapies as there’s some older data showing concurrent therapy looks a bit better than sequential. In triple negative breast cancer, again I prefer to give the anthracycline and delay the taxane and carboplatin to overlap with immunotherapy so we are getting the necessary synergy there as well,” Dr. Borges added.

Dr. Guajardo has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Borges has consulted for SeaGen, Gilead, and AstraZeneca, and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Olema, and SeaGen.

San Antonio – Taxane exposure during pregnancy appears to be safe for mothers and offspring, according to a new retrospective cohort analysis. The findings shed light on a relatively unstudied topic. “Our cohort with 103 patients represents the most extensive study to date, and our main goal was to have homogeneous reporting of adverse events,” Ana Ferrigno Guajardo, MD, said in an interview. She presented the results at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“Breast cancer during pregnancy is a very challenging clinical situation as the expected antineoplastic effects of treatment must be carefully balanced against potential detrimental consequences on the developing fetus,” said Dr. Guajardo. She is a resident physician at Yale University School of Medicine.

Anthracycline-based chemotherapy agents are generally used during pregnancy because there is more safety data available for them, but some studies have shown that taxanes may have better efficacy in some clinical situations. “Cohort studies that have been done in the past [show] that taxane use is mostly deferred to the postpartum period, and we are not really sure of the impact that can have on survival in patients postponing treatment,” said Dr. Guajardo.

There are potential safety concerns with taxanes because neonates lack the cytochrome enzymes to metabolize the drugs, which creates a theoretical risk of adverse effects due to prolonged activity. On the other hand, pregnant women metabolize taxanes faster, and there are placental barriers that can inhibit high molecular weight molecules like taxanes from reaching the fetus, according to Dr. Guajardo.

In addition to pregnancy outcomes, the researchers followed 28 infants, and found that 87% were found to be completely healthy, “so we were relatively reassured. But of course we think that there’s a need for prospective studies that validate our findings regarding the safety taxanes,” said Dr. Guajardo.

Although there is no direct comparison group, the findings correlate well with studies of the general population and other chemotherapy agents. “We have large cohorts with mostly anthracycline-based chemotherapy agents during pregnancy that we can compare our results to, and overall, we were reassured that the prevalence of complications that we found in our cohort was very similar or even lower to those reported in the literature with patients treated with anthracycline-based therapy,” said Dr. Guajardo.

Compared with the general population, the team found higher rates of preterm births, neonatal ICU admissions, and premature membrane rupture, and infants that are small for gestational age. However, with the exception of the latter, all of these risks have been seen in pregnant women treated with other types of chemotherapy. “Perhaps it would be interesting to see if the incidence of small for gestational age neonates might be a bit higher in this population when compared to anthracycline-based therapy agents, but that does require a study that has a comparator group,” said Dr. Guajardo.

The researchers recruited 103 women with an average age of 34 years from 10 centers in 6 countries: United States, France, Spain, Mexico, Italy, and Costa Rica. The great majority were also treated with anthracyclines during gestation, and nearly all (97%) were treated with paclitaxel. The live birth rate was 98%, and 43.4% were preterm, 24% were small for gestational age, 16% were admitted to the neonate ICU, and 12.5% had hyperbilirubinemia.

Obstetric complications included intrauterine growth restriction (9%), preterm premature rupture of membranes (5%), gestational diabetes mellitus (5%), hypertensive disorders (4%), and pregnancy loss (2%).

After the presentation, Virginia Borges, MD, professor of medical oncology at University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, served as a discussant.

“Highlights of this study [include] that it is an international cohort from over six countries with over 100 cases of women included specifically focusing on the use of paclitaxel. They demonstrated safe outcomes for the pregnancies and the mothers,” Dr. Borges said during her presentation.

She went on to highlight several key points that physicians should consider when treating pregnancy-related breast cancer. “We want to achieve prepartum treatment wherever feasible to tackle that cancer before delivery of the child to prevent a pregnancy-related breast cancer from potentially turning into a postpartum breast cancer,” she said.

“If the tumor is ER+/HER2-, we now see we can safely give anthracyclines and taxanes from 12 to about 35 weeks of gestation. We don’t want to get too close to the delivery with chemotherapy. If a patient is HER2+, I prefer to give the anthracycline portion while the person is pregnant and then after delivery incorporate the taxane with the HER2 targeted therapies as there’s some older data showing concurrent therapy looks a bit better than sequential. In triple negative breast cancer, again I prefer to give the anthracycline and delay the taxane and carboplatin to overlap with immunotherapy so we are getting the necessary synergy there as well,” Dr. Borges added.

Dr. Guajardo has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Borges has consulted for SeaGen, Gilead, and AstraZeneca, and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Olema, and SeaGen.

SAN DIEGO — Women with autoimmune skin diseases are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and may benefit from multidisciplinary care with maternal-fetal medicine specialists, results from a large case-control study suggest.

Patients with systemic autoimmune conditions are known to have an increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, “but we weren’t sure if that was the case for patients with autoimmune skin conditions,” presenting study author Heejo Keum, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview during a poster session at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 annual meeting. “There are case reports or nationwide population-based studies on patients with alopecia areata and vitiligo, but those were outside of the US, so we wanted to see if these outcomes could be studied in a larger population-based study in the US.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Drawing from the TriNetX US Collaborative Network, a database of electronic medical records of 94 million patients in the United States, the researchers identified pregnant patients aged 15-44 years between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021. Cases were defined as patients diagnosed with at least one autoimmune skin disease (ASD) prior to the end of pregnancy, including alopecia areata, bullous pemphigoid, cicatricial pemphigoid, dermatitis herpetiformis, cutaneous lupus erythematosus, epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, morphea, pemphigus foliaceus, pemphigus vulgaris, vitiligo, and amyopathic DM. There were two control groups: healthy controls (those without ASDs, systemic lupus erythematosus or rheumatoid arthritis) and disease controls (those with SLE or RA). The researchers used ICD-10 codes to identify pregnancy endpoints, including live births, spontaneous abortion, and stillbirth. Patients with a history of hidradenitis suppurative were excluded from the analysis, as were those with common autoimmune disease such as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Grave’s disease, and type 1 diabetes.

The primary outcomes were adverse pregnancy outcomes defined as spontaneous abortion, gestational hypertension, preeclampsia/eclampsia, gestational diabetes, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), and preterm birth. The researchers used 1:1 propensity scoring to match patients with ASDs to controls by age, race, ethnicity, comorbidities, obesity, and substance use, and used odds ratio (OR) analysis with a 95% confidence interval (CI) to calculate each outcome.

Ms. Keum reported results from 3,654 women with ASDs, 3,654 healthy controls, 2,147 women with SLE, and 889 women with RA.

The three most common ASDs were vitiligo (30%), alopecia areata (30%), and cutaneous lupus erythematosus (27%). Compared with healthy controls, patients with ASDs were more likely to have spontaneous abortions (OR=1.5 [1.4-1.7], P<.001), and preeclampsia/eclampsia (OR=1.2 [1.0-1.3], P=.04). Compared with women with SLE, women with ASDs were less likely to have preeclampsia/eclampsia (OR=0.7 [0.6-0.9, P=.001); preterm birth (OR= 0.5 [0.4-0.7], P<.001); PPROM (OR=0.6 [0.4-0.9], P=.004), or an infant with IUGR (OR=0.6 [0.5-0.8], P<.001), but they were more likely to have a spontaneous abortion (OR=1.2 [1.1-1.3], P=.003). Overall, patients with ASDs had similar risks for adverse pregnancy outcomes as patients with RA.

“We found that patients with cutaneous lupus and vitiligo had higher rates of spontaneous abortion, which is interesting because we didn’t expect that,” Ms. Keum told this news organization. “Studies have shown that vitiligo patients might have an increased risk of pregnancy loss, so I think it’s important to have that discussion with those patients. It might benefit them to talk to a maternal-fetal medicine specialist. As for next steps, we want to look at how medication use and disease flare or disease severity play a role in APOs.”

In their poster, the researchers acknowledged limitations of the study, including the inability to verify diagnoses or assess disease severity. Also, while medication use and concomitant antiphospholipid syndrome were evaluated as risk factors for advanced pregnancy outcomes, the number of patients per group was too small for analysis.

Karl Saardi, MD, director of the inpatient dermatology service at George Washington University Hospital, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that in his view, the choice of disease states included in the analysis “is a bit arbitrary.” He added that “it would have been more helpful to compare controls versus discoid lupus versus systemic lupus or controls versus amyopathic dermatomyositis versus dermatomyositis with myopathy.”

The study received funding support from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the UT Southwestern Dean’s Research Scholar program. Neither Ms. Keum nor Dr. Saardi reported having relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Women with autoimmune skin diseases are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and may benefit from multidisciplinary care with maternal-fetal medicine specialists, results from a large case-control study suggest.

Patients with systemic autoimmune conditions are known to have an increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, “but we weren’t sure if that was the case for patients with autoimmune skin conditions,” presenting study author Heejo Keum, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview during a poster session at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 annual meeting. “There are case reports or nationwide population-based studies on patients with alopecia areata and vitiligo, but those were outside of the US, so we wanted to see if these outcomes could be studied in a larger population-based study in the US.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Drawing from the TriNetX US Collaborative Network, a database of electronic medical records of 94 million patients in the United States, the researchers identified pregnant patients aged 15-44 years between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021. Cases were defined as patients diagnosed with at least one autoimmune skin disease (ASD) prior to the end of pregnancy, including alopecia areata, bullous pemphigoid, cicatricial pemphigoid, dermatitis herpetiformis, cutaneous lupus erythematosus, epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, morphea, pemphigus foliaceus, pemphigus vulgaris, vitiligo, and amyopathic DM. There were two control groups: healthy controls (those without ASDs, systemic lupus erythematosus or rheumatoid arthritis) and disease controls (those with SLE or RA). The researchers used ICD-10 codes to identify pregnancy endpoints, including live births, spontaneous abortion, and stillbirth. Patients with a history of hidradenitis suppurative were excluded from the analysis, as were those with common autoimmune disease such as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Grave’s disease, and type 1 diabetes.

The primary outcomes were adverse pregnancy outcomes defined as spontaneous abortion, gestational hypertension, preeclampsia/eclampsia, gestational diabetes, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), and preterm birth. The researchers used 1:1 propensity scoring to match patients with ASDs to controls by age, race, ethnicity, comorbidities, obesity, and substance use, and used odds ratio (OR) analysis with a 95% confidence interval (CI) to calculate each outcome.

Ms. Keum reported results from 3,654 women with ASDs, 3,654 healthy controls, 2,147 women with SLE, and 889 women with RA.

The three most common ASDs were vitiligo (30%), alopecia areata (30%), and cutaneous lupus erythematosus (27%). Compared with healthy controls, patients with ASDs were more likely to have spontaneous abortions (OR=1.5 [1.4-1.7], P<.001), and preeclampsia/eclampsia (OR=1.2 [1.0-1.3], P=.04). Compared with women with SLE, women with ASDs were less likely to have preeclampsia/eclampsia (OR=0.7 [0.6-0.9, P=.001); preterm birth (OR= 0.5 [0.4-0.7], P<.001); PPROM (OR=0.6 [0.4-0.9], P=.004), or an infant with IUGR (OR=0.6 [0.5-0.8], P<.001), but they were more likely to have a spontaneous abortion (OR=1.2 [1.1-1.3], P=.003). Overall, patients with ASDs had similar risks for adverse pregnancy outcomes as patients with RA.

“We found that patients with cutaneous lupus and vitiligo had higher rates of spontaneous abortion, which is interesting because we didn’t expect that,” Ms. Keum told this news organization. “Studies have shown that vitiligo patients might have an increased risk of pregnancy loss, so I think it’s important to have that discussion with those patients. It might benefit them to talk to a maternal-fetal medicine specialist. As for next steps, we want to look at how medication use and disease flare or disease severity play a role in APOs.”

In their poster, the researchers acknowledged limitations of the study, including the inability to verify diagnoses or assess disease severity. Also, while medication use and concomitant antiphospholipid syndrome were evaluated as risk factors for advanced pregnancy outcomes, the number of patients per group was too small for analysis.

Karl Saardi, MD, director of the inpatient dermatology service at George Washington University Hospital, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that in his view, the choice of disease states included in the analysis “is a bit arbitrary.” He added that “it would have been more helpful to compare controls versus discoid lupus versus systemic lupus or controls versus amyopathic dermatomyositis versus dermatomyositis with myopathy.”

The study received funding support from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the UT Southwestern Dean’s Research Scholar program. Neither Ms. Keum nor Dr. Saardi reported having relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Women with autoimmune skin diseases are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and may benefit from multidisciplinary care with maternal-fetal medicine specialists, results from a large case-control study suggest.

Patients with systemic autoimmune conditions are known to have an increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, “but we weren’t sure if that was the case for patients with autoimmune skin conditions,” presenting study author Heejo Keum, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview during a poster session at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 annual meeting. “There are case reports or nationwide population-based studies on patients with alopecia areata and vitiligo, but those were outside of the US, so we wanted to see if these outcomes could be studied in a larger population-based study in the US.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Drawing from the TriNetX US Collaborative Network, a database of electronic medical records of 94 million patients in the United States, the researchers identified pregnant patients aged 15-44 years between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021. Cases were defined as patients diagnosed with at least one autoimmune skin disease (ASD) prior to the end of pregnancy, including alopecia areata, bullous pemphigoid, cicatricial pemphigoid, dermatitis herpetiformis, cutaneous lupus erythematosus, epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, morphea, pemphigus foliaceus, pemphigus vulgaris, vitiligo, and amyopathic DM. There were two control groups: healthy controls (those without ASDs, systemic lupus erythematosus or rheumatoid arthritis) and disease controls (those with SLE or RA). The researchers used ICD-10 codes to identify pregnancy endpoints, including live births, spontaneous abortion, and stillbirth. Patients with a history of hidradenitis suppurative were excluded from the analysis, as were those with common autoimmune disease such as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Grave’s disease, and type 1 diabetes.

The primary outcomes were adverse pregnancy outcomes defined as spontaneous abortion, gestational hypertension, preeclampsia/eclampsia, gestational diabetes, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), and preterm birth. The researchers used 1:1 propensity scoring to match patients with ASDs to controls by age, race, ethnicity, comorbidities, obesity, and substance use, and used odds ratio (OR) analysis with a 95% confidence interval (CI) to calculate each outcome.

Ms. Keum reported results from 3,654 women with ASDs, 3,654 healthy controls, 2,147 women with SLE, and 889 women with RA.

The three most common ASDs were vitiligo (30%), alopecia areata (30%), and cutaneous lupus erythematosus (27%). Compared with healthy controls, patients with ASDs were more likely to have spontaneous abortions (OR=1.5 [1.4-1.7], P<.001), and preeclampsia/eclampsia (OR=1.2 [1.0-1.3], P=.04). Compared with women with SLE, women with ASDs were less likely to have preeclampsia/eclampsia (OR=0.7 [0.6-0.9, P=.001); preterm birth (OR= 0.5 [0.4-0.7], P<.001); PPROM (OR=0.6 [0.4-0.9], P=.004), or an infant with IUGR (OR=0.6 [0.5-0.8], P<.001), but they were more likely to have a spontaneous abortion (OR=1.2 [1.1-1.3], P=.003). Overall, patients with ASDs had similar risks for adverse pregnancy outcomes as patients with RA.

“We found that patients with cutaneous lupus and vitiligo had higher rates of spontaneous abortion, which is interesting because we didn’t expect that,” Ms. Keum told this news organization. “Studies have shown that vitiligo patients might have an increased risk of pregnancy loss, so I think it’s important to have that discussion with those patients. It might benefit them to talk to a maternal-fetal medicine specialist. As for next steps, we want to look at how medication use and disease flare or disease severity play a role in APOs.”

In their poster, the researchers acknowledged limitations of the study, including the inability to verify diagnoses or assess disease severity. Also, while medication use and concomitant antiphospholipid syndrome were evaluated as risk factors for advanced pregnancy outcomes, the number of patients per group was too small for analysis.

Karl Saardi, MD, director of the inpatient dermatology service at George Washington University Hospital, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that in his view, the choice of disease states included in the analysis “is a bit arbitrary.” He added that “it would have been more helpful to compare controls versus discoid lupus versus systemic lupus or controls versus amyopathic dermatomyositis versus dermatomyositis with myopathy.”

The study received funding support from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the UT Southwestern Dean’s Research Scholar program. Neither Ms. Keum nor Dr. Saardi reported having relevant disclosures.

The American Heart Association (AHA) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have issued a focused update to the 2020 neonatal resuscitation guidelines.

The 2023 focused update was prompted by four systematic literature reviews by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Neonatal Life Support Task Force.

“Evidence evaluations by the ILCOR play a large role in the group’s process and timing of updates,” Henry Lee, MD, co-chair of the writing group, said in an interview.

He noted that updated recommendations do not change prior recommendations from the 2020 guidelines.

“However, they provide additional details to consider in neonatal resuscitation that could lead to changes in some practice in various settings,” said Dr. Lee, medical director of the University of California San Diego neonatal intensive care unit. 

The focused update was simultaneously published online November 16 in Circulation and in Pediatrics.

Dr. Lee noted that effective positive-pressure ventilation (PPV) is the priority in newborn infants who need support after birth.

And while the 2020 update provided some details on devices to be used for PPV, the 2023 focused update gives guidance on use of T-piece resuscitators for providing PPV, which may be particularly helpful for preterm infants, and the use of supraglottic airways as a primary interface to deliver PPV, he explained.

Specifically, the updated guidelines state that use of a T-piece resuscitator to deliver PPV is preferred to the use of a self-inflating bag.

Because both T-piece resuscitators and flow-inflating bags require a compressed gas source to function, a self-inflating bag should be available as a backup in the event of compressed gas failure when using either of these devices.

Use of a supraglottic airway may be considered as the primary interface to administer PPV instead of a face mask for newborn infants delivered at 34 0/7 weeks’ gestation or later.


 

Continued Emphasis on Delayed Cord Clamping

The updated guidelines “continue to emphasize delayed cord clamping for both term and preterm newborn infants when clinically possible. There is also a new recommendation for nonvigorous infants born 35-42 weeks’ gestational age to consider umbilical cord milking,” Dr. Lee said in an interview.

Specifically, the guidelines state: 

• For term and late preterm newborn infants ≥34 weeks’ gestation, and preterm newborn infants <34 weeks’ gestation, who do not require resuscitation, delayed cord clamping (≥30 seconds) can be beneficial compared with early cord clamping (<30 seconds).
• For term and late preterm newborn infants ≥34 weeks’ gestation who do not require resuscitation, intact cord milking is not known to be beneficial compared with delayed cord clamping (≥30 seconds).
• For preterm newborn infants between 28- and 34-weeks’ gestation who do not require resuscitation and in whom delayed cord clamping cannot be performed, intact cord milking may be reasonable.
• For preterm newborn infants <28 weeks’ gestation, intact cord milking is not recommended.
• For nonvigorous term and late preterm infants (35-42 weeks’ gestation), intact cord milking may be reasonable compared with early cord clamping (<30 seconds).

The guidelines also highlight the following knowledge gaps that require further research:

• Optimal management of the umbilical cord in term, late preterm, and preterm infants who require resuscitation at delivery
• Longer-term outcome data, such as anemia during infancy and neurodevelopmental outcomes, for all umbilical cord management strategies
• Cost-effectiveness of a T-piece resuscitator compared with a self-inflating bag
• The effect of a self-inflating bag with a positive end-expiratory pressure valve on outcomes in preterm newborn infants
• Comparison of either a T-piece resuscitator or a self-inflating bag with a flow-inflating bag for administering PPV
• Comparison of clinical outcomes by gestational age for any PPV device
• Comparison of supraglottic airway devices and face masks as the primary interface for PPV in high-resourced settings
• The amount and type of training required for successful supraglottic airway insertion and the potential for skill decay
• The utility of supraglottic airway devices for suctioning secretions from the airway
• The efficacy of a supraglottic airway during advanced neonatal resuscitation requiring chest compressions or the delivery of intratracheal medications

This research had no commercial funding. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Heart Association (AHA) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have issued a focused update to the 2020 neonatal resuscitation guidelines.

The 2023 focused update was prompted by four systematic literature reviews by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Neonatal Life Support Task Force.

“Evidence evaluations by the ILCOR play a large role in the group’s process and timing of updates,” Henry Lee, MD, co-chair of the writing group, said in an interview.

He noted that updated recommendations do not change prior recommendations from the 2020 guidelines.

“However, they provide additional details to consider in neonatal resuscitation that could lead to changes in some practice in various settings,” said Dr. Lee, medical director of the University of California San Diego neonatal intensive care unit. 

The focused update was simultaneously published online November 16 in Circulation and in Pediatrics.

Dr. Lee noted that effective positive-pressure ventilation (PPV) is the priority in newborn infants who need support after birth.

And while the 2020 update provided some details on devices to be used for PPV, the 2023 focused update gives guidance on use of T-piece resuscitators for providing PPV, which may be particularly helpful for preterm infants, and the use of supraglottic airways as a primary interface to deliver PPV, he explained.

Specifically, the updated guidelines state that use of a T-piece resuscitator to deliver PPV is preferred to the use of a self-inflating bag.

Because both T-piece resuscitators and flow-inflating bags require a compressed gas source to function, a self-inflating bag should be available as a backup in the event of compressed gas failure when using either of these devices.

Use of a supraglottic airway may be considered as the primary interface to administer PPV instead of a face mask for newborn infants delivered at 34 0/7 weeks’ gestation or later.


 

Continued Emphasis on Delayed Cord Clamping

The updated guidelines “continue to emphasize delayed cord clamping for both term and preterm newborn infants when clinically possible. There is also a new recommendation for nonvigorous infants born 35-42 weeks’ gestational age to consider umbilical cord milking,” Dr. Lee said in an interview.

Specifically, the guidelines state: 

• For term and late preterm newborn infants ≥34 weeks’ gestation, and preterm newborn infants <34 weeks’ gestation, who do not require resuscitation, delayed cord clamping (≥30 seconds) can be beneficial compared with early cord clamping (<30 seconds).
• For term and late preterm newborn infants ≥34 weeks’ gestation who do not require resuscitation, intact cord milking is not known to be beneficial compared with delayed cord clamping (≥30 seconds).
• For preterm newborn infants between 28- and 34-weeks’ gestation who do not require resuscitation and in whom delayed cord clamping cannot be performed, intact cord milking may be reasonable.
• For preterm newborn infants <28 weeks’ gestation, intact cord milking is not recommended.
• For nonvigorous term and late preterm infants (35-42 weeks’ gestation), intact cord milking may be reasonable compared with early cord clamping (<30 seconds).

The guidelines also highlight the following knowledge gaps that require further research:

• Optimal management of the umbilical cord in term, late preterm, and preterm infants who require resuscitation at delivery
• Longer-term outcome data, such as anemia during infancy and neurodevelopmental outcomes, for all umbilical cord management strategies
• Cost-effectiveness of a T-piece resuscitator compared with a self-inflating bag
• The effect of a self-inflating bag with a positive end-expiratory pressure valve on outcomes in preterm newborn infants
• Comparison of either a T-piece resuscitator or a self-inflating bag with a flow-inflating bag for administering PPV
• Comparison of clinical outcomes by gestational age for any PPV device
• Comparison of supraglottic airway devices and face masks as the primary interface for PPV in high-resourced settings
• The amount and type of training required for successful supraglottic airway insertion and the potential for skill decay
• The utility of supraglottic airway devices for suctioning secretions from the airway
• The efficacy of a supraglottic airway during advanced neonatal resuscitation requiring chest compressions or the delivery of intratracheal medications

This research had no commercial funding. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Heart Association (AHA) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have issued a focused update to the 2020 neonatal resuscitation guidelines.

The 2023 focused update was prompted by four systematic literature reviews by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Neonatal Life Support Task Force.

“Evidence evaluations by the ILCOR play a large role in the group’s process and timing of updates,” Henry Lee, MD, co-chair of the writing group, said in an interview.

He noted that updated recommendations do not change prior recommendations from the 2020 guidelines.

“However, they provide additional details to consider in neonatal resuscitation that could lead to changes in some practice in various settings,” said Dr. Lee, medical director of the University of California San Diego neonatal intensive care unit. 

The focused update was simultaneously published online November 16 in Circulation and in Pediatrics.

Dr. Lee noted that effective positive-pressure ventilation (PPV) is the priority in newborn infants who need support after birth.

And while the 2020 update provided some details on devices to be used for PPV, the 2023 focused update gives guidance on use of T-piece resuscitators for providing PPV, which may be particularly helpful for preterm infants, and the use of supraglottic airways as a primary interface to deliver PPV, he explained.

Specifically, the updated guidelines state that use of a T-piece resuscitator to deliver PPV is preferred to the use of a self-inflating bag.

Because both T-piece resuscitators and flow-inflating bags require a compressed gas source to function, a self-inflating bag should be available as a backup in the event of compressed gas failure when using either of these devices.

Use of a supraglottic airway may be considered as the primary interface to administer PPV instead of a face mask for newborn infants delivered at 34 0/7 weeks’ gestation or later.


 

Continued Emphasis on Delayed Cord Clamping

The updated guidelines “continue to emphasize delayed cord clamping for both term and preterm newborn infants when clinically possible. There is also a new recommendation for nonvigorous infants born 35-42 weeks’ gestational age to consider umbilical cord milking,” Dr. Lee said in an interview.

Specifically, the guidelines state: 

• For term and late preterm newborn infants ≥34 weeks’ gestation, and preterm newborn infants <34 weeks’ gestation, who do not require resuscitation, delayed cord clamping (≥30 seconds) can be beneficial compared with early cord clamping (<30 seconds).
• For term and late preterm newborn infants ≥34 weeks’ gestation who do not require resuscitation, intact cord milking is not known to be beneficial compared with delayed cord clamping (≥30 seconds).
• For preterm newborn infants between 28- and 34-weeks’ gestation who do not require resuscitation and in whom delayed cord clamping cannot be performed, intact cord milking may be reasonable.
• For preterm newborn infants <28 weeks’ gestation, intact cord milking is not recommended.
• For nonvigorous term and late preterm infants (35-42 weeks’ gestation), intact cord milking may be reasonable compared with early cord clamping (<30 seconds).

The guidelines also highlight the following knowledge gaps that require further research:

• Optimal management of the umbilical cord in term, late preterm, and preterm infants who require resuscitation at delivery
• Longer-term outcome data, such as anemia during infancy and neurodevelopmental outcomes, for all umbilical cord management strategies
• Cost-effectiveness of a T-piece resuscitator compared with a self-inflating bag
• The effect of a self-inflating bag with a positive end-expiratory pressure valve on outcomes in preterm newborn infants
• Comparison of either a T-piece resuscitator or a self-inflating bag with a flow-inflating bag for administering PPV
• Comparison of clinical outcomes by gestational age for any PPV device
• Comparison of supraglottic airway devices and face masks as the primary interface for PPV in high-resourced settings
• The amount and type of training required for successful supraglottic airway insertion and the potential for skill decay
• The utility of supraglottic airway devices for suctioning secretions from the airway
• The efficacy of a supraglottic airway during advanced neonatal resuscitation requiring chest compressions or the delivery of intratracheal medications

This research had no commercial funding. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Jerome J. Federspiel, MD, often cares for patients who are about to deliver a baby but who have untreated iron deficiency anemia (IDA). Often, these patients require a blood transfusion after giving birth.

“I am sad to hear commonly from patients we treat that they have had iron-deficient anemia symptoms for many years. Correcting these conditions makes birth safer and, oftentimes, makes people feel much better – sometimes better than they have in years,” Dr. Federspiel, maternal-fetal medicine physician and assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology and population health sciences at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said.

Even patients he is able to diagnose earlier “will have difficulties catching up during pregnancy.”

The condition is the most common type of anemia among people who are pregnant. IDA increases a patient’s risk of delivering preterm and developing postpartum depression and puts their infants at a risk for perinatal mortality. Without proper treatment of IDA throughout pregnancy, the condition can also lead to low birth weights in infants or failing to meet weight goals later on.

But of all women with a new diagnosis of IDA from 2021 to 2022, 10% were pregnant, according to an analysis by Komodo Health, a health care analytics company.

While estimates of the prevalence of IDA vary, research from 2021 found 6.5% of nearly 1,500 patients who were pregnant during the first trimester had the condition, a figure the researchers said might underrepresent the problem.

“In severe cases [fetal outcomes can include] abnormal fetal oxygenation, nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns, reduced amniotic fluid volume, fetal cerebral vasodilation, and fetal death,” Alianne S. Tilley, NP, family nurse practitioner at Women’s Care of Lake Cumberland, Somerset, Ky., said.

Research has shown that adequate levels of iron are an integral component in the development of the fetal brain. Some studies have reported that IDA during pregnancy increases an infant’s risk for poor neurodevelopmental outcomes.
 

Lack of screening protocol

Discrepancies in guidance for testing patients who are pregnant for IDA may add to late diagnosis and low treatment, according to Katelin Zahn, MD, assistant professor of general obstetrics, gynecology, and midwifery at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“There’s no consistency, which leads to a lot of variation in individual practice, which creates variation in outcomes, too,” Dr. Zahn said. “You can only do so much as one independent physician, and you need to be able to create change in a system that functions and provides standard of care even when you aren’t there.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends screening all patients who are pregnant with a complete blood count in the first trimester and again between 24 and 27 weeks of gestation.

Patients who meet criteria for IDA based on hematocrit levels less than 33% in the first and third trimesters, and less than 32% in the second trimester, should be evaluated to determine the cause. Those with IDA should be treated with supplemental iron, in addition to prenatal vitamins, ACOG says.

But the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2015 found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening patients without symptoms or signs of the condition. The organization is in the process of updating the recommendation.
 

Prevention as best practice

The most effective way to address IDA in patients who are pregnant is prevention, according to Dr. Federspiel.

“Having a systematic approach to screening and treatment is really important, and this starts before pregnancy,” Dr. Federspiel said. “On average, a typical pregnancy requires an additional 1 g of iron.”

Dr. Federspiel recommends clinicians discuss the causes and the effects of IDA with patients who are planning to or could become pregnant. Clinicians might recommend iron- and folate-rich foods and vitamins B12 and C and ask patients if they face any barriers to access.

“Prenatal vitamins with iron are the gold standard in preventing IDA in the pregnant population,” Ms. Tilley said. “Education on the significant risk factors associated with IDA in early pregnancy is key.”

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

Jerome J. Federspiel, MD, often cares for patients who are about to deliver a baby but who have untreated iron deficiency anemia (IDA). Often, these patients require a blood transfusion after giving birth.

“I am sad to hear commonly from patients we treat that they have had iron-deficient anemia symptoms for many years. Correcting these conditions makes birth safer and, oftentimes, makes people feel much better – sometimes better than they have in years,” Dr. Federspiel, maternal-fetal medicine physician and assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology and population health sciences at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said.

Even patients he is able to diagnose earlier “will have difficulties catching up during pregnancy.”

The condition is the most common type of anemia among people who are pregnant. IDA increases a patient’s risk of delivering preterm and developing postpartum depression and puts their infants at a risk for perinatal mortality. Without proper treatment of IDA throughout pregnancy, the condition can also lead to low birth weights in infants or failing to meet weight goals later on.

But of all women with a new diagnosis of IDA from 2021 to 2022, 10% were pregnant, according to an analysis by Komodo Health, a health care analytics company.

While estimates of the prevalence of IDA vary, research from 2021 found 6.5% of nearly 1,500 patients who were pregnant during the first trimester had the condition, a figure the researchers said might underrepresent the problem.

“In severe cases [fetal outcomes can include] abnormal fetal oxygenation, nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns, reduced amniotic fluid volume, fetal cerebral vasodilation, and fetal death,” Alianne S. Tilley, NP, family nurse practitioner at Women’s Care of Lake Cumberland, Somerset, Ky., said.

Research has shown that adequate levels of iron are an integral component in the development of the fetal brain. Some studies have reported that IDA during pregnancy increases an infant’s risk for poor neurodevelopmental outcomes.
 

Lack of screening protocol

Discrepancies in guidance for testing patients who are pregnant for IDA may add to late diagnosis and low treatment, according to Katelin Zahn, MD, assistant professor of general obstetrics, gynecology, and midwifery at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“There’s no consistency, which leads to a lot of variation in individual practice, which creates variation in outcomes, too,” Dr. Zahn said. “You can only do so much as one independent physician, and you need to be able to create change in a system that functions and provides standard of care even when you aren’t there.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends screening all patients who are pregnant with a complete blood count in the first trimester and again between 24 and 27 weeks of gestation.

Patients who meet criteria for IDA based on hematocrit levels less than 33% in the first and third trimesters, and less than 32% in the second trimester, should be evaluated to determine the cause. Those with IDA should be treated with supplemental iron, in addition to prenatal vitamins, ACOG says.

But the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2015 found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening patients without symptoms or signs of the condition. The organization is in the process of updating the recommendation.
 

Prevention as best practice

The most effective way to address IDA in patients who are pregnant is prevention, according to Dr. Federspiel.

“Having a systematic approach to screening and treatment is really important, and this starts before pregnancy,” Dr. Federspiel said. “On average, a typical pregnancy requires an additional 1 g of iron.”

Dr. Federspiel recommends clinicians discuss the causes and the effects of IDA with patients who are planning to or could become pregnant. Clinicians might recommend iron- and folate-rich foods and vitamins B12 and C and ask patients if they face any barriers to access.

“Prenatal vitamins with iron are the gold standard in preventing IDA in the pregnant population,” Ms. Tilley said. “Education on the significant risk factors associated with IDA in early pregnancy is key.”

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

Jerome J. Federspiel, MD, often cares for patients who are about to deliver a baby but who have untreated iron deficiency anemia (IDA). Often, these patients require a blood transfusion after giving birth.

“I am sad to hear commonly from patients we treat that they have had iron-deficient anemia symptoms for many years. Correcting these conditions makes birth safer and, oftentimes, makes people feel much better – sometimes better than they have in years,” Dr. Federspiel, maternal-fetal medicine physician and assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology and population health sciences at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said.

Even patients he is able to diagnose earlier “will have difficulties catching up during pregnancy.”

The condition is the most common type of anemia among people who are pregnant. IDA increases a patient’s risk of delivering preterm and developing postpartum depression and puts their infants at a risk for perinatal mortality. Without proper treatment of IDA throughout pregnancy, the condition can also lead to low birth weights in infants or failing to meet weight goals later on.

But of all women with a new diagnosis of IDA from 2021 to 2022, 10% were pregnant, according to an analysis by Komodo Health, a health care analytics company.

While estimates of the prevalence of IDA vary, research from 2021 found 6.5% of nearly 1,500 patients who were pregnant during the first trimester had the condition, a figure the researchers said might underrepresent the problem.

“In severe cases [fetal outcomes can include] abnormal fetal oxygenation, nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns, reduced amniotic fluid volume, fetal cerebral vasodilation, and fetal death,” Alianne S. Tilley, NP, family nurse practitioner at Women’s Care of Lake Cumberland, Somerset, Ky., said.

Research has shown that adequate levels of iron are an integral component in the development of the fetal brain. Some studies have reported that IDA during pregnancy increases an infant’s risk for poor neurodevelopmental outcomes.
 

Lack of screening protocol

Discrepancies in guidance for testing patients who are pregnant for IDA may add to late diagnosis and low treatment, according to Katelin Zahn, MD, assistant professor of general obstetrics, gynecology, and midwifery at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“There’s no consistency, which leads to a lot of variation in individual practice, which creates variation in outcomes, too,” Dr. Zahn said. “You can only do so much as one independent physician, and you need to be able to create change in a system that functions and provides standard of care even when you aren’t there.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends screening all patients who are pregnant with a complete blood count in the first trimester and again between 24 and 27 weeks of gestation.

Patients who meet criteria for IDA based on hematocrit levels less than 33% in the first and third trimesters, and less than 32% in the second trimester, should be evaluated to determine the cause. Those with IDA should be treated with supplemental iron, in addition to prenatal vitamins, ACOG says.

But the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2015 found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening patients without symptoms or signs of the condition. The organization is in the process of updating the recommendation.
 

Prevention as best practice

The most effective way to address IDA in patients who are pregnant is prevention, according to Dr. Federspiel.

“Having a systematic approach to screening and treatment is really important, and this starts before pregnancy,” Dr. Federspiel said. “On average, a typical pregnancy requires an additional 1 g of iron.”

Dr. Federspiel recommends clinicians discuss the causes and the effects of IDA with patients who are planning to or could become pregnant. Clinicians might recommend iron- and folate-rich foods and vitamins B12 and C and ask patients if they face any barriers to access.

“Prenatal vitamins with iron are the gold standard in preventing IDA in the pregnant population,” Ms. Tilley said. “Education on the significant risk factors associated with IDA in early pregnancy is key.”

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

TOPLINE:

For pregnant women with breast cancer, exposure to HER2-targeted therapies increases the risk of severe adverse outcomes to the fetus or newborn, according to a recent analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Current guidelines do not recommend treating pregnant women with trastuzumab, given documented safety concerns. Other anti-HER2 agents are also discouraged in this setting because of a lack of safety data. However, when considering the efficacy of these drugs in HER2-positive breast cancer, having a better understanding of the potential toxicities in pregnant patients is important.
• In the current case-control analysis, the team explored the risk for adverse effects among pregnant women exposed to anti-HER2 agents vs other anticancer drugs.
• The researchers leveraged the World Health Organization’s pharmacovigilance database, VigiBase, to identify reports with at least one pregnancy-related complication and one suspected anticancer drug.
• The researchers classified exposure to the drugs as occurring before pregnancy, during pregnancy, or via breast milk, semen, or skin. The team then examined 30 maternal and fetal or neonatal adverse outcomes and grouped them into seven categories: abortions, stillbirths, congenital malformations, pregnancy complications, preterm birth, neonatal complications, and delivery complications.
• The most used anti-HER2 agent was trastuzumab (n = 302), followed by pertuzumab (n = 55), trastuzumab-emtansine (n = 20), and lapatinib (n = 18).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 3,558 reports included in the analysis, 328 patients were exposed to anti-HER2 drugs compared with 3,230 patients who received other anticancer agents.
• Pregnancy, fetal, or newborn adverse outcomes were reported in 61.3% of women treated with anti-HER2 agents and 56.3% of those receiving other anticancer drugs.
• The five most frequently reported complications in the anti-HER2 group were oligohydramnios (23.8%), preterm birth (17.4%), intrauterine growth restriction (9.8%), neonatal respiratory disorder (7.3%), and spontaneous abortion (7.3%).
• Adverse outcomes overreported in women who received anti-HER2 agents included oligohydramnios (reporting odds ratio [ROR], 17.68), congenital tract disorders (ROR, 9.98), and neonatal kidney failure (ROR, 9.15). Cardiovascular malformations were also overreported among women receiving trastuzumab-emtansine (ROR, 4.46), as were intrauterine growth restrictions for those treated with lapatinib (ROR, 7.68).

IN PRACTICE:

Exposure to anti-HER2 agents was associated with “severe specific adverse pregnancy and fetal or newborn outcomes compared with exposure to other anticancer treatments,” with a “strong, highly significant overreporting of congenital respiratory tract disorders and neonatal kidney failure,” which can lead to oligohydramnios, the authors wrote. The authors also noted that when delaying anti-HER2 therapy is not possible, it’s imperative to monitor patients closely for oligohydramnios.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Paul Gougis, MD, Institut Curie Centre de Recherche, Paris, , was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Potential inconsistencies in the collection of pharmacovigilance data could limit the generalizability of the results in the general population. The group of women exposed to other anticancer therapies may also constitute a different patient population from that given anti-HER2 therapies.

DISCLOSURES:

Coauthor Jean-Philippe Spano, MD, PhD, declared relationships Gilead, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, and GSK.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For pregnant women with breast cancer, exposure to HER2-targeted therapies increases the risk of severe adverse outcomes to the fetus or newborn, according to a recent analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Current guidelines do not recommend treating pregnant women with trastuzumab, given documented safety concerns. Other anti-HER2 agents are also discouraged in this setting because of a lack of safety data. However, when considering the efficacy of these drugs in HER2-positive breast cancer, having a better understanding of the potential toxicities in pregnant patients is important.
• In the current case-control analysis, the team explored the risk for adverse effects among pregnant women exposed to anti-HER2 agents vs other anticancer drugs.
• The researchers leveraged the World Health Organization’s pharmacovigilance database, VigiBase, to identify reports with at least one pregnancy-related complication and one suspected anticancer drug.
• The researchers classified exposure to the drugs as occurring before pregnancy, during pregnancy, or via breast milk, semen, or skin. The team then examined 30 maternal and fetal or neonatal adverse outcomes and grouped them into seven categories: abortions, stillbirths, congenital malformations, pregnancy complications, preterm birth, neonatal complications, and delivery complications.
• The most used anti-HER2 agent was trastuzumab (n = 302), followed by pertuzumab (n = 55), trastuzumab-emtansine (n = 20), and lapatinib (n = 18).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 3,558 reports included in the analysis, 328 patients were exposed to anti-HER2 drugs compared with 3,230 patients who received other anticancer agents.
• Pregnancy, fetal, or newborn adverse outcomes were reported in 61.3% of women treated with anti-HER2 agents and 56.3% of those receiving other anticancer drugs.
• The five most frequently reported complications in the anti-HER2 group were oligohydramnios (23.8%), preterm birth (17.4%), intrauterine growth restriction (9.8%), neonatal respiratory disorder (7.3%), and spontaneous abortion (7.3%).
• Adverse outcomes overreported in women who received anti-HER2 agents included oligohydramnios (reporting odds ratio [ROR], 17.68), congenital tract disorders (ROR, 9.98), and neonatal kidney failure (ROR, 9.15). Cardiovascular malformations were also overreported among women receiving trastuzumab-emtansine (ROR, 4.46), as were intrauterine growth restrictions for those treated with lapatinib (ROR, 7.68).

IN PRACTICE:

Exposure to anti-HER2 agents was associated with “severe specific adverse pregnancy and fetal or newborn outcomes compared with exposure to other anticancer treatments,” with a “strong, highly significant overreporting of congenital respiratory tract disorders and neonatal kidney failure,” which can lead to oligohydramnios, the authors wrote. The authors also noted that when delaying anti-HER2 therapy is not possible, it’s imperative to monitor patients closely for oligohydramnios.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Paul Gougis, MD, Institut Curie Centre de Recherche, Paris, , was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Potential inconsistencies in the collection of pharmacovigilance data could limit the generalizability of the results in the general population. The group of women exposed to other anticancer therapies may also constitute a different patient population from that given anti-HER2 therapies.

DISCLOSURES:

Coauthor Jean-Philippe Spano, MD, PhD, declared relationships Gilead, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, and GSK.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For pregnant women with breast cancer, exposure to HER2-targeted therapies increases the risk of severe adverse outcomes to the fetus or newborn, according to a recent analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Current guidelines do not recommend treating pregnant women with trastuzumab, given documented safety concerns. Other anti-HER2 agents are also discouraged in this setting because of a lack of safety data. However, when considering the efficacy of these drugs in HER2-positive breast cancer, having a better understanding of the potential toxicities in pregnant patients is important.
• In the current case-control analysis, the team explored the risk for adverse effects among pregnant women exposed to anti-HER2 agents vs other anticancer drugs.
• The researchers leveraged the World Health Organization’s pharmacovigilance database, VigiBase, to identify reports with at least one pregnancy-related complication and one suspected anticancer drug.
• The researchers classified exposure to the drugs as occurring before pregnancy, during pregnancy, or via breast milk, semen, or skin. The team then examined 30 maternal and fetal or neonatal adverse outcomes and grouped them into seven categories: abortions, stillbirths, congenital malformations, pregnancy complications, preterm birth, neonatal complications, and delivery complications.
• The most used anti-HER2 agent was trastuzumab (n = 302), followed by pertuzumab (n = 55), trastuzumab-emtansine (n = 20), and lapatinib (n = 18).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 3,558 reports included in the analysis, 328 patients were exposed to anti-HER2 drugs compared with 3,230 patients who received other anticancer agents.
• Pregnancy, fetal, or newborn adverse outcomes were reported in 61.3% of women treated with anti-HER2 agents and 56.3% of those receiving other anticancer drugs.
• The five most frequently reported complications in the anti-HER2 group were oligohydramnios (23.8%), preterm birth (17.4%), intrauterine growth restriction (9.8%), neonatal respiratory disorder (7.3%), and spontaneous abortion (7.3%).
• Adverse outcomes overreported in women who received anti-HER2 agents included oligohydramnios (reporting odds ratio [ROR], 17.68), congenital tract disorders (ROR, 9.98), and neonatal kidney failure (ROR, 9.15). Cardiovascular malformations were also overreported among women receiving trastuzumab-emtansine (ROR, 4.46), as were intrauterine growth restrictions for those treated with lapatinib (ROR, 7.68).

IN PRACTICE:

Exposure to anti-HER2 agents was associated with “severe specific adverse pregnancy and fetal or newborn outcomes compared with exposure to other anticancer treatments,” with a “strong, highly significant overreporting of congenital respiratory tract disorders and neonatal kidney failure,” which can lead to oligohydramnios, the authors wrote. The authors also noted that when delaying anti-HER2 therapy is not possible, it’s imperative to monitor patients closely for oligohydramnios.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Paul Gougis, MD, Institut Curie Centre de Recherche, Paris, , was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Potential inconsistencies in the collection of pharmacovigilance data could limit the generalizability of the results in the general population. The group of women exposed to other anticancer therapies may also constitute a different patient population from that given anti-HER2 therapies.

DISCLOSURES:

Coauthor Jean-Philippe Spano, MD, PhD, declared relationships Gilead, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, and GSK.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of fluticasone and budesonide for eosinophilic esophagitis during pregnancy had no significant adverse effect on maternal or fetal outcomes, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“Currently, there are no specific recommendations about the safe use of steroids in pregnant women with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), Julton Tomanguillo Chumbe, MD, said in an interview. “Our recommendations about the use of steroids among this population are based on the safety data extrapolated mainly from pregnant women with asthma.”

West Virginia University

In the study, Dr. Chumbe, an internal medicine resident at Charleston Area Medical Center, West Virginia University, Charleston, and colleagues identified pregnant patients aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of EoE between January 2011 and December 2022 through the TriNetx Global Collaborative Network, which includes 101 health care organizations in 14 countries. The study population consisted of 1,263 individuals.

The researchers used propensity score matching (PSM) to compare the rates of spontaneous abortion, placenta previa, preeclampsia, premature delivery, HELLP syndrome, eclampsia, hyperemesis gravidarum, and major congenital abnormalities between women with EoE who did and did not use steroids during pregnancy. The PSM cohorts included 268 women in each group.

Overall, pregnant women who used steroids were not significantly more likely than were those who did not use steroids to experience spontaneous abortion (3.73% vs. 4.85%, P = .52). Rates of placenta previa, preeclampsia, premature delivery, HELLP syndrome, and hyperemesis gravidarum were equal between the groups (3.73% vs. 3.73%, P = 1.00 for all). No cases of eclampsia occurred in the steroid group, compared with a 3.73% rate in women who did not use steroids.

Incidence of major congenital abnormalities including but not limited to malformations of the eye, ear, face, neck, skull and face bones, and of the circulatory, respiratory, and digestive systems, were similar between the steroid and no steroid groups (7.09% vs. 8.20%, P = .62)

Dr. Chumbe said he was not surprised by the findings, given the robust data about the safe use of steroids in pregnant women with asthma, in terms of pregnancy outcomes and fetal outcomes.

“The findings of this study provide reassurance that the use of steroids in pregnant patients with eosinophilic esophagitis is not significantly associated with an increased risk of worse maternal or fetal outcomes,” he said. “During pregnancy, some patients may discontinue treatment due to safety concerns. However, this study suggests that this may not be necessary.” Consequently, patients can maintain EoE management while reducing the risk of complications.

Looking ahead, “it will be important to have some data about the safe use of dupilumab during pregnancy in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis,” he said.
 

Pregnant patients can maintain EoE management

“This study is able to address an important concern that many patients have regarding the safety of steroid therapy for EoE, particularly during pregnancy,” said Anita Afzali, MD, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease and executive vice chair of internal medicine at the University of Cincinnati. “As EoE impacts over 40% of women, most who are in childbearing age, it is important to review the safety of treatment and management of EoE so a mother does not have to choose between EoE management and pregnancy.”

The results from this study were certainly reassuring, though not surprising, Dr. Afzali said. “Previously, the safety profile of steroids during pregnancy was mostly extrapolated from asthma, and other diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease. The results from this study confirm that there are no significant associations with adverse maternal or birth outcomes among women with EoE treated with steroids during pregnancy,” she said.

The study has some limitations, including the retrospective design and potential for selection bias, Dr. Afzali noted. “Further research is needed for the evaluation of newer therapies in the pipeline for treatment of EoE and its safety profile with pregnancy,” she said.

However, “sharing this information in clinical practice “will allow our patients to feel comfortable with continuation of appropriate steroid therapy for treatment and management of their EoE, without having to choose between family planning or pregnancy and EoE care management,” Dr. Afzali said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chumbe an Dr. Afzali indicated having no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of fluticasone and budesonide for eosinophilic esophagitis during pregnancy had no significant adverse effect on maternal or fetal outcomes, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“Currently, there are no specific recommendations about the safe use of steroids in pregnant women with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), Julton Tomanguillo Chumbe, MD, said in an interview. “Our recommendations about the use of steroids among this population are based on the safety data extrapolated mainly from pregnant women with asthma.”

West Virginia University

In the study, Dr. Chumbe, an internal medicine resident at Charleston Area Medical Center, West Virginia University, Charleston, and colleagues identified pregnant patients aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of EoE between January 2011 and December 2022 through the TriNetx Global Collaborative Network, which includes 101 health care organizations in 14 countries. The study population consisted of 1,263 individuals.

The researchers used propensity score matching (PSM) to compare the rates of spontaneous abortion, placenta previa, preeclampsia, premature delivery, HELLP syndrome, eclampsia, hyperemesis gravidarum, and major congenital abnormalities between women with EoE who did and did not use steroids during pregnancy. The PSM cohorts included 268 women in each group.

Overall, pregnant women who used steroids were not significantly more likely than were those who did not use steroids to experience spontaneous abortion (3.73% vs. 4.85%, P = .52). Rates of placenta previa, preeclampsia, premature delivery, HELLP syndrome, and hyperemesis gravidarum were equal between the groups (3.73% vs. 3.73%, P = 1.00 for all). No cases of eclampsia occurred in the steroid group, compared with a 3.73% rate in women who did not use steroids.

Incidence of major congenital abnormalities including but not limited to malformations of the eye, ear, face, neck, skull and face bones, and of the circulatory, respiratory, and digestive systems, were similar between the steroid and no steroid groups (7.09% vs. 8.20%, P = .62)

Dr. Chumbe said he was not surprised by the findings, given the robust data about the safe use of steroids in pregnant women with asthma, in terms of pregnancy outcomes and fetal outcomes.

“The findings of this study provide reassurance that the use of steroids in pregnant patients with eosinophilic esophagitis is not significantly associated with an increased risk of worse maternal or fetal outcomes,” he said. “During pregnancy, some patients may discontinue treatment due to safety concerns. However, this study suggests that this may not be necessary.” Consequently, patients can maintain EoE management while reducing the risk of complications.

Looking ahead, “it will be important to have some data about the safe use of dupilumab during pregnancy in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis,” he said.
 

Pregnant patients can maintain EoE management

“This study is able to address an important concern that many patients have regarding the safety of steroid therapy for EoE, particularly during pregnancy,” said Anita Afzali, MD, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease and executive vice chair of internal medicine at the University of Cincinnati. “As EoE impacts over 40% of women, most who are in childbearing age, it is important to review the safety of treatment and management of EoE so a mother does not have to choose between EoE management and pregnancy.”

The results from this study were certainly reassuring, though not surprising, Dr. Afzali said. “Previously, the safety profile of steroids during pregnancy was mostly extrapolated from asthma, and other diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease. The results from this study confirm that there are no significant associations with adverse maternal or birth outcomes among women with EoE treated with steroids during pregnancy,” she said.

The study has some limitations, including the retrospective design and potential for selection bias, Dr. Afzali noted. “Further research is needed for the evaluation of newer therapies in the pipeline for treatment of EoE and its safety profile with pregnancy,” she said.

However, “sharing this information in clinical practice “will allow our patients to feel comfortable with continuation of appropriate steroid therapy for treatment and management of their EoE, without having to choose between family planning or pregnancy and EoE care management,” Dr. Afzali said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chumbe an Dr. Afzali indicated having no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of fluticasone and budesonide for eosinophilic esophagitis during pregnancy had no significant adverse effect on maternal or fetal outcomes, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“Currently, there are no specific recommendations about the safe use of steroids in pregnant women with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), Julton Tomanguillo Chumbe, MD, said in an interview. “Our recommendations about the use of steroids among this population are based on the safety data extrapolated mainly from pregnant women with asthma.”

West Virginia University

In the study, Dr. Chumbe, an internal medicine resident at Charleston Area Medical Center, West Virginia University, Charleston, and colleagues identified pregnant patients aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of EoE between January 2011 and December 2022 through the TriNetx Global Collaborative Network, which includes 101 health care organizations in 14 countries. The study population consisted of 1,263 individuals.

The researchers used propensity score matching (PSM) to compare the rates of spontaneous abortion, placenta previa, preeclampsia, premature delivery, HELLP syndrome, eclampsia, hyperemesis gravidarum, and major congenital abnormalities between women with EoE who did and did not use steroids during pregnancy. The PSM cohorts included 268 women in each group.

Overall, pregnant women who used steroids were not significantly more likely than were those who did not use steroids to experience spontaneous abortion (3.73% vs. 4.85%, P = .52). Rates of placenta previa, preeclampsia, premature delivery, HELLP syndrome, and hyperemesis gravidarum were equal between the groups (3.73% vs. 3.73%, P = 1.00 for all). No cases of eclampsia occurred in the steroid group, compared with a 3.73% rate in women who did not use steroids.

Incidence of major congenital abnormalities including but not limited to malformations of the eye, ear, face, neck, skull and face bones, and of the circulatory, respiratory, and digestive systems, were similar between the steroid and no steroid groups (7.09% vs. 8.20%, P = .62)

Dr. Chumbe said he was not surprised by the findings, given the robust data about the safe use of steroids in pregnant women with asthma, in terms of pregnancy outcomes and fetal outcomes.

“The findings of this study provide reassurance that the use of steroids in pregnant patients with eosinophilic esophagitis is not significantly associated with an increased risk of worse maternal or fetal outcomes,” he said. “During pregnancy, some patients may discontinue treatment due to safety concerns. However, this study suggests that this may not be necessary.” Consequently, patients can maintain EoE management while reducing the risk of complications.

Looking ahead, “it will be important to have some data about the safe use of dupilumab during pregnancy in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis,” he said.
 

Pregnant patients can maintain EoE management

“This study is able to address an important concern that many patients have regarding the safety of steroid therapy for EoE, particularly during pregnancy,” said Anita Afzali, MD, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease and executive vice chair of internal medicine at the University of Cincinnati. “As EoE impacts over 40% of women, most who are in childbearing age, it is important to review the safety of treatment and management of EoE so a mother does not have to choose between EoE management and pregnancy.”

The results from this study were certainly reassuring, though not surprising, Dr. Afzali said. “Previously, the safety profile of steroids during pregnancy was mostly extrapolated from asthma, and other diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease. The results from this study confirm that there are no significant associations with adverse maternal or birth outcomes among women with EoE treated with steroids during pregnancy,” she said.

The study has some limitations, including the retrospective design and potential for selection bias, Dr. Afzali noted. “Further research is needed for the evaluation of newer therapies in the pipeline for treatment of EoE and its safety profile with pregnancy,” she said.

However, “sharing this information in clinical practice “will allow our patients to feel comfortable with continuation of appropriate steroid therapy for treatment and management of their EoE, without having to choose between family planning or pregnancy and EoE care management,” Dr. Afzali said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Chumbe an Dr. Afzali indicated having no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

An intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device provided prompt and effective management of bleeding in cases of obstetric hemorrhage, based on data from 800 individuals.

Morbidity and mortality related to postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) are often preventable if caught early, but the persistent rise in PPH-associated morbidity illustrates the need for new and innovative treatments, wrote Dena Goffman, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center

The device, known as the Jada System, was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for management of abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding or postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in August 2020 and showed safety and effectiveness in a registrational study of 106 patients, the researchers said.

In a postmarket registry medical record review known as RUBY (Treating Abnormal Postpartum Uterine Bleeding or Postpartum Hemorrhage with the Jada System), the researchers examined data collected from Oct. 8, 2020, to March 31, 2022, at 16 centers in the United States. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The study population included all individuals treated with an intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device; of these, 530 were vaginal births and 270 were cesarean births. A total of 94.3% had uterine atony, alone or in conjunction with other causes of bleeding. The median maternal age was 30.3 years; approximately 60% and 53% of patients in the vaginal and cesarean groups were White, and approximately 43% and 49% of patients in the two groups, respectively, were nulliparous.

The median blood loss at the time of device insertion was 1,250 mL in vaginal births and 1,980 mL in cesarean births, and the median time from delivery of the placenta to device insertion was 31 minutes and 108 minutes in the two groups, respectively.

The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as control of bleeding after device insertion, with no escalation of treatment or recurrence of bleeding after the initial bleeding control and device removal.

Treatment success was achieved in 92.5% of vaginal births and 83.7% of cesarean births, and in 95.8% and 88.2%, respectively, among patients with isolated uterine atony. The median insertion time was 3.1 hours for vaginal births and 4.6 hours for cesarean births.

The safety profile was similar to that in the registrational trial and adverse effects were those expected in patients with PPH, the researchers noted.

A total of 14 SAEs were reported in 13 patients with vaginal births, and 22 SAEs were reported in 21 patients with cesarean births. Of these, three were identified as possibly related to the device or procedure (two cases of endometritis in the vaginal birth group and one case of hemorrhagic shock in the cesarean group); no uterine perforations of deaths were reported during the study.

The study was limited by several factors including the use of data mainly from academic centers, which could limit generalizability, and by the use of a mix of estimated and quantitative reporting of blood loss, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to make direct comparisons to other treatments for PPH.

However, the results confirm the safety and efficacy of the device in a real-world setting and support its use as an important new tool in the management of PPH and reducing maternal morbidity and mortality, they concluded.

Two companies were involved in the study; Alydia Health contributed to the concept, design, and analysis, and Organon contributed to data analysis and reviewed the manuscript.

Dr. Goffman disclosed research support from Organon and Alydia Health, as well as serving as a speaker for Haymarket and PRIME PPH education and for Laborie, participation in the Cooper Surgical Obstetrical Safety Council, and serving as an editor for UpToDate. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Organon and Alydia Health.

An intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device provided prompt and effective management of bleeding in cases of obstetric hemorrhage, based on data from 800 individuals.

Morbidity and mortality related to postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) are often preventable if caught early, but the persistent rise in PPH-associated morbidity illustrates the need for new and innovative treatments, wrote Dena Goffman, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center

The device, known as the Jada System, was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for management of abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding or postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in August 2020 and showed safety and effectiveness in a registrational study of 106 patients, the researchers said.

In a postmarket registry medical record review known as RUBY (Treating Abnormal Postpartum Uterine Bleeding or Postpartum Hemorrhage with the Jada System), the researchers examined data collected from Oct. 8, 2020, to March 31, 2022, at 16 centers in the United States. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The study population included all individuals treated with an intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device; of these, 530 were vaginal births and 270 were cesarean births. A total of 94.3% had uterine atony, alone or in conjunction with other causes of bleeding. The median maternal age was 30.3 years; approximately 60% and 53% of patients in the vaginal and cesarean groups were White, and approximately 43% and 49% of patients in the two groups, respectively, were nulliparous.

The median blood loss at the time of device insertion was 1,250 mL in vaginal births and 1,980 mL in cesarean births, and the median time from delivery of the placenta to device insertion was 31 minutes and 108 minutes in the two groups, respectively.

The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as control of bleeding after device insertion, with no escalation of treatment or recurrence of bleeding after the initial bleeding control and device removal.

Treatment success was achieved in 92.5% of vaginal births and 83.7% of cesarean births, and in 95.8% and 88.2%, respectively, among patients with isolated uterine atony. The median insertion time was 3.1 hours for vaginal births and 4.6 hours for cesarean births.

The safety profile was similar to that in the registrational trial and adverse effects were those expected in patients with PPH, the researchers noted.

A total of 14 SAEs were reported in 13 patients with vaginal births, and 22 SAEs were reported in 21 patients with cesarean births. Of these, three were identified as possibly related to the device or procedure (two cases of endometritis in the vaginal birth group and one case of hemorrhagic shock in the cesarean group); no uterine perforations of deaths were reported during the study.

The study was limited by several factors including the use of data mainly from academic centers, which could limit generalizability, and by the use of a mix of estimated and quantitative reporting of blood loss, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to make direct comparisons to other treatments for PPH.

However, the results confirm the safety and efficacy of the device in a real-world setting and support its use as an important new tool in the management of PPH and reducing maternal morbidity and mortality, they concluded.

Two companies were involved in the study; Alydia Health contributed to the concept, design, and analysis, and Organon contributed to data analysis and reviewed the manuscript.

Dr. Goffman disclosed research support from Organon and Alydia Health, as well as serving as a speaker for Haymarket and PRIME PPH education and for Laborie, participation in the Cooper Surgical Obstetrical Safety Council, and serving as an editor for UpToDate. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Organon and Alydia Health.

An intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device provided prompt and effective management of bleeding in cases of obstetric hemorrhage, based on data from 800 individuals.

Morbidity and mortality related to postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) are often preventable if caught early, but the persistent rise in PPH-associated morbidity illustrates the need for new and innovative treatments, wrote Dena Goffman, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center

The device, known as the Jada System, was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for management of abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding or postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in August 2020 and showed safety and effectiveness in a registrational study of 106 patients, the researchers said.

In a postmarket registry medical record review known as RUBY (Treating Abnormal Postpartum Uterine Bleeding or Postpartum Hemorrhage with the Jada System), the researchers examined data collected from Oct. 8, 2020, to March 31, 2022, at 16 centers in the United States. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The study population included all individuals treated with an intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device; of these, 530 were vaginal births and 270 were cesarean births. A total of 94.3% had uterine atony, alone or in conjunction with other causes of bleeding. The median maternal age was 30.3 years; approximately 60% and 53% of patients in the vaginal and cesarean groups were White, and approximately 43% and 49% of patients in the two groups, respectively, were nulliparous.

The median blood loss at the time of device insertion was 1,250 mL in vaginal births and 1,980 mL in cesarean births, and the median time from delivery of the placenta to device insertion was 31 minutes and 108 minutes in the two groups, respectively.

The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as control of bleeding after device insertion, with no escalation of treatment or recurrence of bleeding after the initial bleeding control and device removal.

Treatment success was achieved in 92.5% of vaginal births and 83.7% of cesarean births, and in 95.8% and 88.2%, respectively, among patients with isolated uterine atony. The median insertion time was 3.1 hours for vaginal births and 4.6 hours for cesarean births.

The safety profile was similar to that in the registrational trial and adverse effects were those expected in patients with PPH, the researchers noted.

A total of 14 SAEs were reported in 13 patients with vaginal births, and 22 SAEs were reported in 21 patients with cesarean births. Of these, three were identified as possibly related to the device or procedure (two cases of endometritis in the vaginal birth group and one case of hemorrhagic shock in the cesarean group); no uterine perforations of deaths were reported during the study.

The study was limited by several factors including the use of data mainly from academic centers, which could limit generalizability, and by the use of a mix of estimated and quantitative reporting of blood loss, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to make direct comparisons to other treatments for PPH.

However, the results confirm the safety and efficacy of the device in a real-world setting and support its use as an important new tool in the management of PPH and reducing maternal morbidity and mortality, they concluded.

Two companies were involved in the study; Alydia Health contributed to the concept, design, and analysis, and Organon contributed to data analysis and reviewed the manuscript.

Dr. Goffman disclosed research support from Organon and Alydia Health, as well as serving as a speaker for Haymarket and PRIME PPH education and for Laborie, participation in the Cooper Surgical Obstetrical Safety Council, and serving as an editor for UpToDate. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Organon and Alydia Health.

Use of low-dose aspirin to manage hypertension in pregnancy caused no increased flares in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, shows new research presented in October at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Annual Scientific Meeting.

Low-dose aspirin is recommended for pregnant women who are at risk of hypertensive disorders, such as eclampsia, preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes, said Uma Mahadevan, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist and director of the University of California, San Francisco Colitis and Crohn’s Disease Center, who presented the research at the meeting. Regular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use has been associated with increased disease activity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but the impact of low-dose aspirin on IBD during pregnancy has not been well studied, she said.

The study, which was conducted between January 2013 and December 2022 at a single clinic, included 325 women (mean age 34 years) with IBD who had at least one pregnancy. Of these, 53% had ulcerative colitis and 47% had Crohn’s disease. The primary outcome was IBD flare during pregnancy or within 6 months postpartum. Flares were defined as an IBD-related hospitalization and/or surgery, new initiation of IBD therapy, elevated level of fecal calprotectin greater than 150 micrograms per milligram, or new active endoscopic disease.

A total of 95 patients (29%) used low-dose aspirin during pregnancy; 59 took 81 mg and 36 took 162 mg. The cumulative flare rate was similar between patients who took low-dose aspirin and those who did not (24% vs. 26%, P = .83). However, patients who took low-dose aspirin were significantly more likely than were those who did not to experience preterm birth, younger gestational age at delivery, and cesarean delivery (22.1% vs. 6.1%, 38 weeks vs. 39 weeks, 51% vs. 27%, respectively, P < .01 for all).

Overall rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy were similar between the low-dose aspirin and non–low-dose aspirin groups (22% vs. 19%, respectively, P = .59), but individuals on low-dose aspirin were more likely to experience preeclampsia than were those not on low-dose aspirin (11.6% vs 4.3%, P = .03).

The study findings support the benefits of aspirin for pregnant women at increased risk for these conditions. “Pregnant patients with IBD should be offered low-dose aspirin without concern for increased risk of flares,” Dr. Mahadevan said.

“This is a very practical study with high relevance in our everyday management of IBD patients,” Shannon Chang, MD, a specialist in IBD with NYU Langone Health, said in an interview. “Having this study helps us understand the risk of increased IBD activity in the setting of aspirin use during pregnancy.”

Dr. Chang was not surprised by the findings. “Since the [ACOG] guidelines changed several years ago, there have been more and more patients with IBD who have taken aspirin during their pregnancies and the results of this study seem to match what we see in clinical practice,” she said. “This study will help us counsel our patients on the safety of aspirin use during pregnancy, and the findings will also be useful for discussions with our obstetrics colleagues who may seek guidance on the safety of aspirin [use] in our pregnant IBD patients.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Mahadevan disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Protagonist Therapeutics, Rani Therapeutics, Roivant, and Takeda. Dr. Chang disclosed serving as a consultant for Pfizer, AbbVie, and BMS.

Use of low-dose aspirin to manage hypertension in pregnancy caused no increased flares in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, shows new research presented in October at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Annual Scientific Meeting.

Low-dose aspirin is recommended for pregnant women who are at risk of hypertensive disorders, such as eclampsia, preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes, said Uma Mahadevan, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist and director of the University of California, San Francisco Colitis and Crohn’s Disease Center, who presented the research at the meeting. Regular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use has been associated with increased disease activity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but the impact of low-dose aspirin on IBD during pregnancy has not been well studied, she said.

The study, which was conducted between January 2013 and December 2022 at a single clinic, included 325 women (mean age 34 years) with IBD who had at least one pregnancy. Of these, 53% had ulcerative colitis and 47% had Crohn’s disease. The primary outcome was IBD flare during pregnancy or within 6 months postpartum. Flares were defined as an IBD-related hospitalization and/or surgery, new initiation of IBD therapy, elevated level of fecal calprotectin greater than 150 micrograms per milligram, or new active endoscopic disease.

A total of 95 patients (29%) used low-dose aspirin during pregnancy; 59 took 81 mg and 36 took 162 mg. The cumulative flare rate was similar between patients who took low-dose aspirin and those who did not (24% vs. 26%, P = .83). However, patients who took low-dose aspirin were significantly more likely than were those who did not to experience preterm birth, younger gestational age at delivery, and cesarean delivery (22.1% vs. 6.1%, 38 weeks vs. 39 weeks, 51% vs. 27%, respectively, P < .01 for all).

Overall rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy were similar between the low-dose aspirin and non–low-dose aspirin groups (22% vs. 19%, respectively, P = .59), but individuals on low-dose aspirin were more likely to experience preeclampsia than were those not on low-dose aspirin (11.6% vs 4.3%, P = .03).

The study findings support the benefits of aspirin for pregnant women at increased risk for these conditions. “Pregnant patients with IBD should be offered low-dose aspirin without concern for increased risk of flares,” Dr. Mahadevan said.

“This is a very practical study with high relevance in our everyday management of IBD patients,” Shannon Chang, MD, a specialist in IBD with NYU Langone Health, said in an interview. “Having this study helps us understand the risk of increased IBD activity in the setting of aspirin use during pregnancy.”

Dr. Chang was not surprised by the findings. “Since the [ACOG] guidelines changed several years ago, there have been more and more patients with IBD who have taken aspirin during their pregnancies and the results of this study seem to match what we see in clinical practice,” she said. “This study will help us counsel our patients on the safety of aspirin use during pregnancy, and the findings will also be useful for discussions with our obstetrics colleagues who may seek guidance on the safety of aspirin [use] in our pregnant IBD patients.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Mahadevan disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Protagonist Therapeutics, Rani Therapeutics, Roivant, and Takeda. Dr. Chang disclosed serving as a consultant for Pfizer, AbbVie, and BMS.

Use of low-dose aspirin to manage hypertension in pregnancy caused no increased flares in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, shows new research presented in October at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Annual Scientific Meeting.

Low-dose aspirin is recommended for pregnant women who are at risk of hypertensive disorders, such as eclampsia, preeclampsia, and gestational diabetes, said Uma Mahadevan, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist and director of the University of California, San Francisco Colitis and Crohn’s Disease Center, who presented the research at the meeting. Regular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use has been associated with increased disease activity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but the impact of low-dose aspirin on IBD during pregnancy has not been well studied, she said.

The study, which was conducted between January 2013 and December 2022 at a single clinic, included 325 women (mean age 34 years) with IBD who had at least one pregnancy. Of these, 53% had ulcerative colitis and 47% had Crohn’s disease. The primary outcome was IBD flare during pregnancy or within 6 months postpartum. Flares were defined as an IBD-related hospitalization and/or surgery, new initiation of IBD therapy, elevated level of fecal calprotectin greater than 150 micrograms per milligram, or new active endoscopic disease.

A total of 95 patients (29%) used low-dose aspirin during pregnancy; 59 took 81 mg and 36 took 162 mg. The cumulative flare rate was similar between patients who took low-dose aspirin and those who did not (24% vs. 26%, P = .83). However, patients who took low-dose aspirin were significantly more likely than were those who did not to experience preterm birth, younger gestational age at delivery, and cesarean delivery (22.1% vs. 6.1%, 38 weeks vs. 39 weeks, 51% vs. 27%, respectively, P < .01 for all).

Overall rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy were similar between the low-dose aspirin and non–low-dose aspirin groups (22% vs. 19%, respectively, P = .59), but individuals on low-dose aspirin were more likely to experience preeclampsia than were those not on low-dose aspirin (11.6% vs 4.3%, P = .03).

The study findings support the benefits of aspirin for pregnant women at increased risk for these conditions. “Pregnant patients with IBD should be offered low-dose aspirin without concern for increased risk of flares,” Dr. Mahadevan said.

“This is a very practical study with high relevance in our everyday management of IBD patients,” Shannon Chang, MD, a specialist in IBD with NYU Langone Health, said in an interview. “Having this study helps us understand the risk of increased IBD activity in the setting of aspirin use during pregnancy.”

Dr. Chang was not surprised by the findings. “Since the [ACOG] guidelines changed several years ago, there have been more and more patients with IBD who have taken aspirin during their pregnancies and the results of this study seem to match what we see in clinical practice,” she said. “This study will help us counsel our patients on the safety of aspirin use during pregnancy, and the findings will also be useful for discussions with our obstetrics colleagues who may seek guidance on the safety of aspirin [use] in our pregnant IBD patients.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Mahadevan disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Protagonist Therapeutics, Rani Therapeutics, Roivant, and Takeda. Dr. Chang disclosed serving as a consultant for Pfizer, AbbVie, and BMS.