Women's Health

Financial hardship remains prevalent among pregnant and postpartum women, despite the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), according to new findings published in JAMA Network Open.

Nearly a quarter (24%) of pregnant and postpartum women reported having unmet health care needs, 60% had health care unaffordability, and 54% reported general financial stress. Notably, the type of insurance was associated with the ability to afford health care.

Those with private insurance, along with women with lower incomes, were more likely to experience unaffordable health care, compared to those covered by public insurance or who had higher incomes.

Senior study author Michelle H. Moniz, MD, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, was surprised by multiple study findings. “The prevalence of financial hardship overall, and the three individual indicators of hardship, did not change over time from 2013 to 2018,” she said. “The ACA was enacted just prior to the study period, and while this policy had many benefits for women – especially around increasing insurance coverage – it does not seem to have improved financial hardship among pregnant and postpartum women.”

She emphasized that two groups were at the highest risk of health care unaffordability: those with private insurance and those living on low incomes. “This is notable, as we often think of private insurance as offering ‘Cadillac coverage,’ but our prior work suggests that privately insured women have strikingly high out-of-pocket costs for pregnancy and childbirth-related care,” Dr. Moniz said.

These expenses include deductibles, copays, and coinsurance payments, which come to about $4,500 on average. Medicaid plans, in contrast, have exceedingly low out-of-pocket costs for pregnant and postpartum women. “Findings from the current study call for targeted policy interventions to alleviate financial strain and remove financial barriers to health care access for privately insured families,” she said. “Similarly, families living on lower incomes were also at high risk of health care unaffordability. This may be because even small out-of-pocket costs, or health care–associated costs, account for a larger share of the family’s income.”

This finding for lower-income women calls for targeted policy interventions. “Sliding-scale deductibles, for example, are one solution that might mitigate economic hardship and remove cost-related barriers to health care for pregnant and postpartum women,” Dr. Moniz added.

Health care unaffordability high

In this study, Dr. Moniz and colleagues evaluated the prevalence of financial hardship among peripartum women over time, and how it was affected by their income level and the type of insurance coverage.

They conducted a cross-sectional study that included peripartum women between the ages of 18 and 45 years who reported being currently pregnant or pregnant in the past 12 months. The women were all participants in the National Health Interview Survey, which covers the period from 2013 to 2018, and the data were analyzed from January to May 2021.

The cohort included 3,509 peripartum women, and was weighted to represent 1,050,789 women, with a mean age of 29 years. In 2018, an estimated 39,017 of 184,018 (21.2%) were Black; 36,045 (19.6%) were Hispanic; and 97,366 (52.9%) were White. In the latter years of the study period, the participants tended to be older, more highly educated, and less likely to lack insurance.

When the authors compared the unadjusted reported financial hardship outcome by each study year, unmet health care need (2013: 27.9% [95% confidence interval, 24.4%-31.7%]; 2018: 23.7% [95% CI, 19.5%-28.6%]), health care unaffordability (2013: 65.7% [95% CI, 61.1%-70.0%]; 2018: 58.8% [95% CI, 53.4%-64.0%]), and general financial stress (2013: 60.6% [95% CI, 55.2%-65.8%]; 2018: 53.8% [95% CI, 47.8%-59.8%]) remained largely unchanged between 2013 and 2018.

When they looked at the relationship between insurance type, income, and financial difficulties, some degree of financial hardship was common across all groups; private insurance: 63.8% [95% CI, 61.1%-66.6%]; with public insurance: 49.9% [95% CI, 46.4%-53.4%]; with no insurance: 81.8% [95% CI, 76.4%-87.3%]; with income < 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL): 65.5% [95% CI, 62.1%-66.9%]; with income at least 400% of the FPL: 49.3% [95% CI,44.7%-53.9%]).

Those without any insurance had the highest odds of reporting unmet health care needs (adjusted OR [aOR], 4.40; 95% CI, 3.23-6.00) and health care unaffordability (aOR, 5.18; 95% CI, 3.49-7.70) compared with women who received public insurance.

But while women with private insurance had lower odds of reporting unmet health care needs (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87), they faced higher odds of reporting health care unaffordability (aOR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.49-2.36) compared to women who had public insurance.

Those with household incomes of less than 400% of the FPL had higher odds of reporting unmet health care need (aOR,1.50; 95% CI, 1.08-2.08) and health care unaffordability (aOR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.54-2.55) versus women whose household incomes were at least 400% of FPL. The odds of general financial stress did not significantly differ by insurance status/type or income level.

Weighing in on the data

Jamie Daw, PhD, assistant professor of health policy and management, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, noted that many people think of private insurance as “good coverage.”

“But the portion of medical costs that patients are required to pay under private plans has risen dramatically over the past decade,” she said. “Over half of the U.S. workforce is now enrolled in high-deductible plans, where the average deductible was $4,500 in 2020. The private insurance of today does not provide sufficient financial protection for most families, who would need to have the liquid assets to cover childbirth.”

Another expert agreed that the high out-of-pocket costs for women with private health insurance were probably responsible for making peripartum health care more unaffordable. These included costs for pregnancy care as well as for maternal and infant care during and after childbirth.

“This study reporting the high unmet medical needs and unaffordability of health care for peripartum women further underscores that the U.S. health care system is not meeting the needs of pregnant women, mothers, and their newborn infants,” said Lois K. Lee, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate director for public policy at the Sandra L. Fenwick Institute for Pediatric Health Equity and Inclusion, Boston.

“It is imperative to optimize the health of pregnant mothers to optimize the health of infants, who are our future society,” she said. “Policies which would expand Medicaid coverage to a full 1-year postpartum across all states is one important strategy to improve health care access and affordability to peripartum women. However, this must be part of a multipronged approach addressing the social determinants of health, as insurance coverage alone will not fully address this important health issue of peripartum women, and their children.”

Dr Moniz reported receiving personal fees from the RAND Corporation, the Society of Family Planning outside the submitted work and grant K08 HS025465 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Daw has no disclosures. Dr. Lee reports speaker fees from the American Academy of Pediatrics and SUNY Upstate Medical University. Coauthor Dr. Taylor was supported by the National Clinician Scholars Program at the University of Michigan. Dr Dalton was supported by grant R01 HS023784 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
 

Financial hardship remains prevalent among pregnant and postpartum women, despite the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), according to new findings published in JAMA Network Open.

Nearly a quarter (24%) of pregnant and postpartum women reported having unmet health care needs, 60% had health care unaffordability, and 54% reported general financial stress. Notably, the type of insurance was associated with the ability to afford health care.

Those with private insurance, along with women with lower incomes, were more likely to experience unaffordable health care, compared to those covered by public insurance or who had higher incomes.

Senior study author Michelle H. Moniz, MD, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, was surprised by multiple study findings. “The prevalence of financial hardship overall, and the three individual indicators of hardship, did not change over time from 2013 to 2018,” she said. “The ACA was enacted just prior to the study period, and while this policy had many benefits for women – especially around increasing insurance coverage – it does not seem to have improved financial hardship among pregnant and postpartum women.”

She emphasized that two groups were at the highest risk of health care unaffordability: those with private insurance and those living on low incomes. “This is notable, as we often think of private insurance as offering ‘Cadillac coverage,’ but our prior work suggests that privately insured women have strikingly high out-of-pocket costs for pregnancy and childbirth-related care,” Dr. Moniz said.

These expenses include deductibles, copays, and coinsurance payments, which come to about $4,500 on average. Medicaid plans, in contrast, have exceedingly low out-of-pocket costs for pregnant and postpartum women. “Findings from the current study call for targeted policy interventions to alleviate financial strain and remove financial barriers to health care access for privately insured families,” she said. “Similarly, families living on lower incomes were also at high risk of health care unaffordability. This may be because even small out-of-pocket costs, or health care–associated costs, account for a larger share of the family’s income.”

This finding for lower-income women calls for targeted policy interventions. “Sliding-scale deductibles, for example, are one solution that might mitigate economic hardship and remove cost-related barriers to health care for pregnant and postpartum women,” Dr. Moniz added.

Health care unaffordability high

In this study, Dr. Moniz and colleagues evaluated the prevalence of financial hardship among peripartum women over time, and how it was affected by their income level and the type of insurance coverage.

They conducted a cross-sectional study that included peripartum women between the ages of 18 and 45 years who reported being currently pregnant or pregnant in the past 12 months. The women were all participants in the National Health Interview Survey, which covers the period from 2013 to 2018, and the data were analyzed from January to May 2021.

The cohort included 3,509 peripartum women, and was weighted to represent 1,050,789 women, with a mean age of 29 years. In 2018, an estimated 39,017 of 184,018 (21.2%) were Black; 36,045 (19.6%) were Hispanic; and 97,366 (52.9%) were White. In the latter years of the study period, the participants tended to be older, more highly educated, and less likely to lack insurance.

When the authors compared the unadjusted reported financial hardship outcome by each study year, unmet health care need (2013: 27.9% [95% confidence interval, 24.4%-31.7%]; 2018: 23.7% [95% CI, 19.5%-28.6%]), health care unaffordability (2013: 65.7% [95% CI, 61.1%-70.0%]; 2018: 58.8% [95% CI, 53.4%-64.0%]), and general financial stress (2013: 60.6% [95% CI, 55.2%-65.8%]; 2018: 53.8% [95% CI, 47.8%-59.8%]) remained largely unchanged between 2013 and 2018.

When they looked at the relationship between insurance type, income, and financial difficulties, some degree of financial hardship was common across all groups; private insurance: 63.8% [95% CI, 61.1%-66.6%]; with public insurance: 49.9% [95% CI, 46.4%-53.4%]; with no insurance: 81.8% [95% CI, 76.4%-87.3%]; with income < 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL): 65.5% [95% CI, 62.1%-66.9%]; with income at least 400% of the FPL: 49.3% [95% CI,44.7%-53.9%]).

Those without any insurance had the highest odds of reporting unmet health care needs (adjusted OR [aOR], 4.40; 95% CI, 3.23-6.00) and health care unaffordability (aOR, 5.18; 95% CI, 3.49-7.70) compared with women who received public insurance.

But while women with private insurance had lower odds of reporting unmet health care needs (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87), they faced higher odds of reporting health care unaffordability (aOR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.49-2.36) compared to women who had public insurance.

Those with household incomes of less than 400% of the FPL had higher odds of reporting unmet health care need (aOR,1.50; 95% CI, 1.08-2.08) and health care unaffordability (aOR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.54-2.55) versus women whose household incomes were at least 400% of FPL. The odds of general financial stress did not significantly differ by insurance status/type or income level.

Weighing in on the data

Jamie Daw, PhD, assistant professor of health policy and management, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, noted that many people think of private insurance as “good coverage.”

“But the portion of medical costs that patients are required to pay under private plans has risen dramatically over the past decade,” she said. “Over half of the U.S. workforce is now enrolled in high-deductible plans, where the average deductible was $4,500 in 2020. The private insurance of today does not provide sufficient financial protection for most families, who would need to have the liquid assets to cover childbirth.”

Another expert agreed that the high out-of-pocket costs for women with private health insurance were probably responsible for making peripartum health care more unaffordable. These included costs for pregnancy care as well as for maternal and infant care during and after childbirth.

“This study reporting the high unmet medical needs and unaffordability of health care for peripartum women further underscores that the U.S. health care system is not meeting the needs of pregnant women, mothers, and their newborn infants,” said Lois K. Lee, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate director for public policy at the Sandra L. Fenwick Institute for Pediatric Health Equity and Inclusion, Boston.

“It is imperative to optimize the health of pregnant mothers to optimize the health of infants, who are our future society,” she said. “Policies which would expand Medicaid coverage to a full 1-year postpartum across all states is one important strategy to improve health care access and affordability to peripartum women. However, this must be part of a multipronged approach addressing the social determinants of health, as insurance coverage alone will not fully address this important health issue of peripartum women, and their children.”

Dr Moniz reported receiving personal fees from the RAND Corporation, the Society of Family Planning outside the submitted work and grant K08 HS025465 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Daw has no disclosures. Dr. Lee reports speaker fees from the American Academy of Pediatrics and SUNY Upstate Medical University. Coauthor Dr. Taylor was supported by the National Clinician Scholars Program at the University of Michigan. Dr Dalton was supported by grant R01 HS023784 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
 

Financial hardship remains prevalent among pregnant and postpartum women, despite the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), according to new findings published in JAMA Network Open.

Nearly a quarter (24%) of pregnant and postpartum women reported having unmet health care needs, 60% had health care unaffordability, and 54% reported general financial stress. Notably, the type of insurance was associated with the ability to afford health care.

Those with private insurance, along with women with lower incomes, were more likely to experience unaffordable health care, compared to those covered by public insurance or who had higher incomes.

Senior study author Michelle H. Moniz, MD, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, was surprised by multiple study findings. “The prevalence of financial hardship overall, and the three individual indicators of hardship, did not change over time from 2013 to 2018,” she said. “The ACA was enacted just prior to the study period, and while this policy had many benefits for women – especially around increasing insurance coverage – it does not seem to have improved financial hardship among pregnant and postpartum women.”

She emphasized that two groups were at the highest risk of health care unaffordability: those with private insurance and those living on low incomes. “This is notable, as we often think of private insurance as offering ‘Cadillac coverage,’ but our prior work suggests that privately insured women have strikingly high out-of-pocket costs for pregnancy and childbirth-related care,” Dr. Moniz said.

These expenses include deductibles, copays, and coinsurance payments, which come to about $4,500 on average. Medicaid plans, in contrast, have exceedingly low out-of-pocket costs for pregnant and postpartum women. “Findings from the current study call for targeted policy interventions to alleviate financial strain and remove financial barriers to health care access for privately insured families,” she said. “Similarly, families living on lower incomes were also at high risk of health care unaffordability. This may be because even small out-of-pocket costs, or health care–associated costs, account for a larger share of the family’s income.”

This finding for lower-income women calls for targeted policy interventions. “Sliding-scale deductibles, for example, are one solution that might mitigate economic hardship and remove cost-related barriers to health care for pregnant and postpartum women,” Dr. Moniz added.

Health care unaffordability high

In this study, Dr. Moniz and colleagues evaluated the prevalence of financial hardship among peripartum women over time, and how it was affected by their income level and the type of insurance coverage.

They conducted a cross-sectional study that included peripartum women between the ages of 18 and 45 years who reported being currently pregnant or pregnant in the past 12 months. The women were all participants in the National Health Interview Survey, which covers the period from 2013 to 2018, and the data were analyzed from January to May 2021.

The cohort included 3,509 peripartum women, and was weighted to represent 1,050,789 women, with a mean age of 29 years. In 2018, an estimated 39,017 of 184,018 (21.2%) were Black; 36,045 (19.6%) were Hispanic; and 97,366 (52.9%) were White. In the latter years of the study period, the participants tended to be older, more highly educated, and less likely to lack insurance.

When the authors compared the unadjusted reported financial hardship outcome by each study year, unmet health care need (2013: 27.9% [95% confidence interval, 24.4%-31.7%]; 2018: 23.7% [95% CI, 19.5%-28.6%]), health care unaffordability (2013: 65.7% [95% CI, 61.1%-70.0%]; 2018: 58.8% [95% CI, 53.4%-64.0%]), and general financial stress (2013: 60.6% [95% CI, 55.2%-65.8%]; 2018: 53.8% [95% CI, 47.8%-59.8%]) remained largely unchanged between 2013 and 2018.

When they looked at the relationship between insurance type, income, and financial difficulties, some degree of financial hardship was common across all groups; private insurance: 63.8% [95% CI, 61.1%-66.6%]; with public insurance: 49.9% [95% CI, 46.4%-53.4%]; with no insurance: 81.8% [95% CI, 76.4%-87.3%]; with income < 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL): 65.5% [95% CI, 62.1%-66.9%]; with income at least 400% of the FPL: 49.3% [95% CI,44.7%-53.9%]).

Those without any insurance had the highest odds of reporting unmet health care needs (adjusted OR [aOR], 4.40; 95% CI, 3.23-6.00) and health care unaffordability (aOR, 5.18; 95% CI, 3.49-7.70) compared with women who received public insurance.

But while women with private insurance had lower odds of reporting unmet health care needs (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87), they faced higher odds of reporting health care unaffordability (aOR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.49-2.36) compared to women who had public insurance.

Those with household incomes of less than 400% of the FPL had higher odds of reporting unmet health care need (aOR,1.50; 95% CI, 1.08-2.08) and health care unaffordability (aOR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.54-2.55) versus women whose household incomes were at least 400% of FPL. The odds of general financial stress did not significantly differ by insurance status/type or income level.

Weighing in on the data

Jamie Daw, PhD, assistant professor of health policy and management, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, noted that many people think of private insurance as “good coverage.”

“But the portion of medical costs that patients are required to pay under private plans has risen dramatically over the past decade,” she said. “Over half of the U.S. workforce is now enrolled in high-deductible plans, where the average deductible was $4,500 in 2020. The private insurance of today does not provide sufficient financial protection for most families, who would need to have the liquid assets to cover childbirth.”

Another expert agreed that the high out-of-pocket costs for women with private health insurance were probably responsible for making peripartum health care more unaffordable. These included costs for pregnancy care as well as for maternal and infant care during and after childbirth.

“This study reporting the high unmet medical needs and unaffordability of health care for peripartum women further underscores that the U.S. health care system is not meeting the needs of pregnant women, mothers, and their newborn infants,” said Lois K. Lee, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate director for public policy at the Sandra L. Fenwick Institute for Pediatric Health Equity and Inclusion, Boston.

“It is imperative to optimize the health of pregnant mothers to optimize the health of infants, who are our future society,” she said. “Policies which would expand Medicaid coverage to a full 1-year postpartum across all states is one important strategy to improve health care access and affordability to peripartum women. However, this must be part of a multipronged approach addressing the social determinants of health, as insurance coverage alone will not fully address this important health issue of peripartum women, and their children.”

Dr Moniz reported receiving personal fees from the RAND Corporation, the Society of Family Planning outside the submitted work and grant K08 HS025465 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Daw has no disclosures. Dr. Lee reports speaker fees from the American Academy of Pediatrics and SUNY Upstate Medical University. Coauthor Dr. Taylor was supported by the National Clinician Scholars Program at the University of Michigan. Dr Dalton was supported by grant R01 HS023784 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
 

Mirroring the opioid crisis, maternal and newborn hepatitis C infections (HCV) more than doubled in the United States between 2009 and 2019, with disproportionate increases in people of White, American Indian, and Alaska Native race, especially those with less education, according to a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Health Forum. However, the level of risk within these populations was mitigated in counties with higher employment, reported Stephen W. Patrick, MD, of Vanderbilt University, in Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors.

“As we develop public health approaches to prevent HCV infections, connect to treatment, and monitor exposed infants, understanding these factors can be of critical importance to tailoring interventions,” Dr. Patrick said in an interview. “HCV is one more complication of the opioid crisis,” he added. “These data also enable us to step back a bit from HCV and look at the landscape of how the opioid crisis continues to grow in complexity and scope. Throughout the opioid crisis we have often failed to recognize and address the unique needs of pregnant people and infants.”

The study authors used data from the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and from the Area Health Resource File to examine maternal-infant HCV infection among all U.S. births between 2009 and 2019. The researchers also examined community-level risk factors including rurality, employment, and access to medical care.

In counties reporting HCV, there were 39,380,122 people who had live births, of whom 138,343 (0.4%) were diagnosed with HCV. The overall rate of maternal HCV infection increased from 1.8 to 5.1 per 1,000 live births between 2009 and 2019.

Infection rates were highest in American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) and White people (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.94 and 7.37, respectively) compared with Black people. They were higher among individuals without a 4-year degree compared to those with higher education (aOR, 3.19).

Among these groups considered to be at higher risk for HCV infection, high employment rates somewhat mitigated the risk. Specifically, in counties in the 10th percentile of employment, the predicted probability of HCV increased from 0.16% to 1.37%, between 2009 and 2019, whereas in counties at the 90th percentile of employment, the predicted probability remained similar, at 0.36% in 2009 and 0.48% in 2019.

“With constrained national resources, understanding both individual and community-level factors associated with HCV infections in pregnant people could inform strategies to mitigate its spread, such as harm reduction efforts (e.g., syringe service programs), improving access to treatment for [opioid use disorder] or increasing the obstetrical workforce in high-risk communities, HCV testing strategies in pregnant people and people of childbearing age, and treatment with novel antiviral therapies,” wrote the authors.

In the time since the authors began the study, universal HCV screening for every pregnancy has been recommended by a number of groups, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). However, Dr. Patrick says even though such recommendations are now adopted, it will be some time before they are fully operational, making knowledge of HCV risk factors important for obstetricians as well as pediatricians and family physicians. “We don’t know how if hospitals and clinicians have started universal screening for HCV and even when it is completely adopted, understanding individual and community-level factors associated with HCV in pregnant people is still of critical importance,” he explained. “In some of our previous work we have found that non-White HCV-exposed infants are less likely to be tested for HCV than are White infants, even after accounting for multiple individual and hospital-level factors. The pattern we are seeing in our research and in research in other groups is one of unequal treatment of pregnant people with substance use disorder in terms of being given evidence-based treatments, being tested for HCV, and even in child welfare outcomes like foster placement. It is important to know these issues are occurring, but we need specific equitable approaches to ensuring optimal outcomes for all families.

Jeffrey A. Kuller, MD, one of the authors of the SMFM’s new recommendations for universal HCV screening in pregnancy, agreed that until universal screening is widely adopted, awareness of maternal HCV risk factors is important, “to better determine who is at highest risk for hep C, barriers to care, and patients to better target.” This information also affects procedure at the time of delivery, added Dr. Kuller, professor of obstetrics and gynecology in the division of maternal-fetal medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “We do not perform C-sections for the presence of hep C,” he told this publication. However, in labor, “we try to avoid internal fetal monitoring when possible, and early artificial rupture of membranes when possible, and avoid the use of routine episiotomy,” he said. “Hep C–positive patients should also be assessed for other sexually transmitted diseases including HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and hep B. “Although we do not typically treat hep C pharmacologically during pregnancy, we try to get the patient placed with a hepatologist for long-term management.”

The study has important implications for pediatric patients, added Audrey R. Lloyd, MD, a med-peds infectious disease fellow who is studying HCV in pregnancy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “In the setting of maternal HCV viremia, maternal-fetal transmission occurs in around 6% of exposed infants and around 10% if there is maternal HIV-HCV coinfection,” she said in an interview. “With the increasing rates of HCV in pregnant women described by Dr. Patrick et al., HCV infections among infants will also rise. Even when maternal HCV infection is documented, we often do not do a good job screening the infants for infection and linking them to treatment. This new data makes me worried we may see more complications of pediatric HCV infection in the future,” she added. She explained that safe and effective treatments for HCV infection are approved down to 3 years of age, but patients must first be diagnosed to receive treatment. 

From whichever angle you approach it, tackling both the opioid epidemic and HCV infection in pregnancy will inevitably end up helping both parts of the mother-infant dyad, said Dr. Patrick. “Not too long ago I was caring for an opioid-exposed infant at the hospital where I practice who had transferred in from another center hours away. The mother had not been tested for HCV, so I tested the infant for HCV antibodies which were positive. Imagine that, determining a mother is HCV positive by testing the infant. There are so many layers of systems that should be fixed to make this not happen. And what are the chances the mother, after she found out, was able to access treatment for HCV? What about the infant being tested? The systems are just fragmented and we need to do better.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health. Neither Dr. Patrick, Dr. Kuller, nor Dr. Lloyd reported any conflicts of interest.

Mirroring the opioid crisis, maternal and newborn hepatitis C infections (HCV) more than doubled in the United States between 2009 and 2019, with disproportionate increases in people of White, American Indian, and Alaska Native race, especially those with less education, according to a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Health Forum. However, the level of risk within these populations was mitigated in counties with higher employment, reported Stephen W. Patrick, MD, of Vanderbilt University, in Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors.

“As we develop public health approaches to prevent HCV infections, connect to treatment, and monitor exposed infants, understanding these factors can be of critical importance to tailoring interventions,” Dr. Patrick said in an interview. “HCV is one more complication of the opioid crisis,” he added. “These data also enable us to step back a bit from HCV and look at the landscape of how the opioid crisis continues to grow in complexity and scope. Throughout the opioid crisis we have often failed to recognize and address the unique needs of pregnant people and infants.”

The study authors used data from the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and from the Area Health Resource File to examine maternal-infant HCV infection among all U.S. births between 2009 and 2019. The researchers also examined community-level risk factors including rurality, employment, and access to medical care.

In counties reporting HCV, there were 39,380,122 people who had live births, of whom 138,343 (0.4%) were diagnosed with HCV. The overall rate of maternal HCV infection increased from 1.8 to 5.1 per 1,000 live births between 2009 and 2019.

Infection rates were highest in American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) and White people (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.94 and 7.37, respectively) compared with Black people. They were higher among individuals without a 4-year degree compared to those with higher education (aOR, 3.19).

Among these groups considered to be at higher risk for HCV infection, high employment rates somewhat mitigated the risk. Specifically, in counties in the 10th percentile of employment, the predicted probability of HCV increased from 0.16% to 1.37%, between 2009 and 2019, whereas in counties at the 90th percentile of employment, the predicted probability remained similar, at 0.36% in 2009 and 0.48% in 2019.

“With constrained national resources, understanding both individual and community-level factors associated with HCV infections in pregnant people could inform strategies to mitigate its spread, such as harm reduction efforts (e.g., syringe service programs), improving access to treatment for [opioid use disorder] or increasing the obstetrical workforce in high-risk communities, HCV testing strategies in pregnant people and people of childbearing age, and treatment with novel antiviral therapies,” wrote the authors.

In the time since the authors began the study, universal HCV screening for every pregnancy has been recommended by a number of groups, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). However, Dr. Patrick says even though such recommendations are now adopted, it will be some time before they are fully operational, making knowledge of HCV risk factors important for obstetricians as well as pediatricians and family physicians. “We don’t know how if hospitals and clinicians have started universal screening for HCV and even when it is completely adopted, understanding individual and community-level factors associated with HCV in pregnant people is still of critical importance,” he explained. “In some of our previous work we have found that non-White HCV-exposed infants are less likely to be tested for HCV than are White infants, even after accounting for multiple individual and hospital-level factors. The pattern we are seeing in our research and in research in other groups is one of unequal treatment of pregnant people with substance use disorder in terms of being given evidence-based treatments, being tested for HCV, and even in child welfare outcomes like foster placement. It is important to know these issues are occurring, but we need specific equitable approaches to ensuring optimal outcomes for all families.

Jeffrey A. Kuller, MD, one of the authors of the SMFM’s new recommendations for universal HCV screening in pregnancy, agreed that until universal screening is widely adopted, awareness of maternal HCV risk factors is important, “to better determine who is at highest risk for hep C, barriers to care, and patients to better target.” This information also affects procedure at the time of delivery, added Dr. Kuller, professor of obstetrics and gynecology in the division of maternal-fetal medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “We do not perform C-sections for the presence of hep C,” he told this publication. However, in labor, “we try to avoid internal fetal monitoring when possible, and early artificial rupture of membranes when possible, and avoid the use of routine episiotomy,” he said. “Hep C–positive patients should also be assessed for other sexually transmitted diseases including HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and hep B. “Although we do not typically treat hep C pharmacologically during pregnancy, we try to get the patient placed with a hepatologist for long-term management.”

The study has important implications for pediatric patients, added Audrey R. Lloyd, MD, a med-peds infectious disease fellow who is studying HCV in pregnancy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “In the setting of maternal HCV viremia, maternal-fetal transmission occurs in around 6% of exposed infants and around 10% if there is maternal HIV-HCV coinfection,” she said in an interview. “With the increasing rates of HCV in pregnant women described by Dr. Patrick et al., HCV infections among infants will also rise. Even when maternal HCV infection is documented, we often do not do a good job screening the infants for infection and linking them to treatment. This new data makes me worried we may see more complications of pediatric HCV infection in the future,” she added. She explained that safe and effective treatments for HCV infection are approved down to 3 years of age, but patients must first be diagnosed to receive treatment. 

From whichever angle you approach it, tackling both the opioid epidemic and HCV infection in pregnancy will inevitably end up helping both parts of the mother-infant dyad, said Dr. Patrick. “Not too long ago I was caring for an opioid-exposed infant at the hospital where I practice who had transferred in from another center hours away. The mother had not been tested for HCV, so I tested the infant for HCV antibodies which were positive. Imagine that, determining a mother is HCV positive by testing the infant. There are so many layers of systems that should be fixed to make this not happen. And what are the chances the mother, after she found out, was able to access treatment for HCV? What about the infant being tested? The systems are just fragmented and we need to do better.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health. Neither Dr. Patrick, Dr. Kuller, nor Dr. Lloyd reported any conflicts of interest.

Mirroring the opioid crisis, maternal and newborn hepatitis C infections (HCV) more than doubled in the United States between 2009 and 2019, with disproportionate increases in people of White, American Indian, and Alaska Native race, especially those with less education, according to a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Health Forum. However, the level of risk within these populations was mitigated in counties with higher employment, reported Stephen W. Patrick, MD, of Vanderbilt University, in Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors.

“As we develop public health approaches to prevent HCV infections, connect to treatment, and monitor exposed infants, understanding these factors can be of critical importance to tailoring interventions,” Dr. Patrick said in an interview. “HCV is one more complication of the opioid crisis,” he added. “These data also enable us to step back a bit from HCV and look at the landscape of how the opioid crisis continues to grow in complexity and scope. Throughout the opioid crisis we have often failed to recognize and address the unique needs of pregnant people and infants.”

The study authors used data from the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and from the Area Health Resource File to examine maternal-infant HCV infection among all U.S. births between 2009 and 2019. The researchers also examined community-level risk factors including rurality, employment, and access to medical care.

In counties reporting HCV, there were 39,380,122 people who had live births, of whom 138,343 (0.4%) were diagnosed with HCV. The overall rate of maternal HCV infection increased from 1.8 to 5.1 per 1,000 live births between 2009 and 2019.

Infection rates were highest in American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) and White people (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7.94 and 7.37, respectively) compared with Black people. They were higher among individuals without a 4-year degree compared to those with higher education (aOR, 3.19).

Among these groups considered to be at higher risk for HCV infection, high employment rates somewhat mitigated the risk. Specifically, in counties in the 10th percentile of employment, the predicted probability of HCV increased from 0.16% to 1.37%, between 2009 and 2019, whereas in counties at the 90th percentile of employment, the predicted probability remained similar, at 0.36% in 2009 and 0.48% in 2019.

“With constrained national resources, understanding both individual and community-level factors associated with HCV infections in pregnant people could inform strategies to mitigate its spread, such as harm reduction efforts (e.g., syringe service programs), improving access to treatment for [opioid use disorder] or increasing the obstetrical workforce in high-risk communities, HCV testing strategies in pregnant people and people of childbearing age, and treatment with novel antiviral therapies,” wrote the authors.

In the time since the authors began the study, universal HCV screening for every pregnancy has been recommended by a number of groups, including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM). However, Dr. Patrick says even though such recommendations are now adopted, it will be some time before they are fully operational, making knowledge of HCV risk factors important for obstetricians as well as pediatricians and family physicians. “We don’t know how if hospitals and clinicians have started universal screening for HCV and even when it is completely adopted, understanding individual and community-level factors associated with HCV in pregnant people is still of critical importance,” he explained. “In some of our previous work we have found that non-White HCV-exposed infants are less likely to be tested for HCV than are White infants, even after accounting for multiple individual and hospital-level factors. The pattern we are seeing in our research and in research in other groups is one of unequal treatment of pregnant people with substance use disorder in terms of being given evidence-based treatments, being tested for HCV, and even in child welfare outcomes like foster placement. It is important to know these issues are occurring, but we need specific equitable approaches to ensuring optimal outcomes for all families.

Jeffrey A. Kuller, MD, one of the authors of the SMFM’s new recommendations for universal HCV screening in pregnancy, agreed that until universal screening is widely adopted, awareness of maternal HCV risk factors is important, “to better determine who is at highest risk for hep C, barriers to care, and patients to better target.” This information also affects procedure at the time of delivery, added Dr. Kuller, professor of obstetrics and gynecology in the division of maternal-fetal medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “We do not perform C-sections for the presence of hep C,” he told this publication. However, in labor, “we try to avoid internal fetal monitoring when possible, and early artificial rupture of membranes when possible, and avoid the use of routine episiotomy,” he said. “Hep C–positive patients should also be assessed for other sexually transmitted diseases including HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and hep B. “Although we do not typically treat hep C pharmacologically during pregnancy, we try to get the patient placed with a hepatologist for long-term management.”

The study has important implications for pediatric patients, added Audrey R. Lloyd, MD, a med-peds infectious disease fellow who is studying HCV in pregnancy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “In the setting of maternal HCV viremia, maternal-fetal transmission occurs in around 6% of exposed infants and around 10% if there is maternal HIV-HCV coinfection,” she said in an interview. “With the increasing rates of HCV in pregnant women described by Dr. Patrick et al., HCV infections among infants will also rise. Even when maternal HCV infection is documented, we often do not do a good job screening the infants for infection and linking them to treatment. This new data makes me worried we may see more complications of pediatric HCV infection in the future,” she added. She explained that safe and effective treatments for HCV infection are approved down to 3 years of age, but patients must first be diagnosed to receive treatment. 

From whichever angle you approach it, tackling both the opioid epidemic and HCV infection in pregnancy will inevitably end up helping both parts of the mother-infant dyad, said Dr. Patrick. “Not too long ago I was caring for an opioid-exposed infant at the hospital where I practice who had transferred in from another center hours away. The mother had not been tested for HCV, so I tested the infant for HCV antibodies which were positive. Imagine that, determining a mother is HCV positive by testing the infant. There are so many layers of systems that should be fixed to make this not happen. And what are the chances the mother, after she found out, was able to access treatment for HCV? What about the infant being tested? The systems are just fragmented and we need to do better.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health. Neither Dr. Patrick, Dr. Kuller, nor Dr. Lloyd reported any conflicts of interest.

During over 3 hours of oral arguments on Nov. 1, a seeming majority of Supreme Court justices appeared receptive to blocking a Texas law that essentially bans abortion after 6 weeks.

They seemed less certain about whether the federal government — which is also challenging the law — was within its rights to sue Texas.

Senate Bill 8, which went into effect September 1, allows any private citizen to file suit anywhere in the state against anyone who performs, induces, or “aids or abets” an abortion. If successful in court, the plaintiff is entitled to at least $10,000 and does not have to pay attorneys’ fees; rather, defendants are required to pay all legal costs.

In September, most justices denied an emergency request to stop the law but agreed to quickly hear the challenges in person.

At the Nov. 1 hearing, it appeared that a few justices who had let the law stand — notably conservatives Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh — were now agreeing that its challengers, in particular the abortion provider Whole Woman’s Health, might have a legal basis to move forward.

“I think it’s pretty likely the Court is going to do something that allows ‘someone’s’ suit against SB 8 to go ahead,” tweeted Raffi Melkonian, a Houston attorney, after the hearing. “I don’t know when they’re going to do that.”

The Supreme Court usually issues its opinions months after arguments. Since these two challenges — Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson and US v. Texas —  were heard on a faster schedule, there’s speculation that a decision could also come quickly.

“The court clearly is in a hurry,” wrote Florida State University law professor Mary Ziegler before the hearing in a post on court-tracking site SCOTUSblog. She said the court seems to be taking the abortion issue as seriously as most Americans, and that the justices could rule before it hears oral arguments on December 1 in a Mississippi case directly challenging Roe v. Wade.

In addition, data shows abortions have been severely curtailed in Texas since the law took effect — by as much as 50% according to researchers at the University of Texas at Austin. They reported that 2,164 abortions were provided in September 2021, compared with 4,313 in September 2020.

“The actual provisions in this law have prevented every woman in Texas from exercising a constitutional right as declared by this court,” said Justice Elena Kagan, clarifying that it was every woman who had not made a decision by 6 weeks.

“Usually, in these chilling effect cases, we’re kind of guessing,” she said. “Here, we’re not guessing. We know exactly what has happened as a result of this law. It has chilled everybody on the ground.”

Judge Edward Stone II, an attorney with the Texas Attorney General’s Office who argued for the state, denied Justice Kagan’s assertion.

Nineteen medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Physicians, filed a friend of the court brief supporting both challenges, saying the Texas law allows legislators to interfere with the patient–doctor relationship and that it limits treatment options.

Texas argued that the only way to challenge the law at the federal level would be to be sued first.

Marc A. Hearron, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights who argued for Whole Woman’s Health, said that was untenable.

“What my friends on the other side are saying is that clinics should just violate the law,” and “subject themselves to the risk that they will be forced to close their doors,” said Mr. Hearron. 

But even if providers decide to violate the law, “they may not find physicians, nurses, ultrasound technicians, staff members willing to work behind the desk, because this law targets all of them,” he said.

Plus, clinics run the risk of becoming permanent defendants because the law does not prohibit multiple suits, he said.

Whole Woman’s Health asked the justices to stop the law by preventing the state’s clerks from filing cases.
 

Federal standing not as clear

The U.S. Department of Justice sued Texas on September 9, saying the law negated the constitutional right to an abortion.

“The Act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said at the time.

At the court, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar called it a “brazen attack” on the supremacy of federal law and said it would open the door to other states mounting similar challenges.

Justice Kagan seemed to agree.

“The entire point of this law, its purpose, and its effect is to find the chink in the armor of Ex parte Young,” a 1908 law that “set out a basic principle of how our government is supposed to work and how people can seek review of unconstitutional state laws,” she said, decrying that “after all these many years, some geniuses came up with a way to evade the commands of that decision.”

Judge Stone waved off the concerns. “Nothing in this law even pretends that Texas courts could evade that because it can’t,” he said.

“Essentially, we would be inviting states, all 50 of them, with respect to their unpreferred constitutional rights, to try to nullify the law — that this Court has laid down as to the content of those rights,” said Justice Kagan.

Justice Kavanaugh also seemed concerned about that possibility.

“It could be free speech rights. It could be free exercise of religion rights. It could be Second Amendment rights if this position is accepted here,” he said, citing a brief submitted by the Firearms Policy Coalition that supported the Whole Woman’s Health challenge.

Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed dubious that the Texas law would undercut anybody’s right to challenge.

“Often constitutional rights, of course, can only be enforced in a defensive posture, when an individual is faced either with potential liability, punitive damages, but also, of course, civil fines — fines and even criminal sanction, including prison time,” he said.

Judge Stone argued that the U.S. government is “not a proper plaintiff” and did not have the right to sue Texas or any of its officials because none were involved in enforcing the law. If the federal government didn’t like the law, it should ask Congress to fix it, said Judge Stone.

After the hearing, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton reiterated that position.

“The Biden Administration does not have the power to sue a state, such as Texas, just because it disagrees with a state law that protects the unborn,” he said in a statement.

A ruling on the challenges will not put an end to the litigation over SB 8.

“Even if the Supreme Court does rule that the abortion provider plaintiffs are allowed to sue, it is likely that there will still need to be more litigation in a federal trial court before SB 8 is actually determined to be unconstitutional and is blocked by a court order,” wrote Ian Millhiser, a Supreme Court scholar, after the hearing.

A federal judge in Austin did approve the Department of Justice’s request for a temporary halt to the law in October, but days later, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it could go back into effect while the legal questions were being pondered in the courts.

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

During over 3 hours of oral arguments on Nov. 1, a seeming majority of Supreme Court justices appeared receptive to blocking a Texas law that essentially bans abortion after 6 weeks.

They seemed less certain about whether the federal government — which is also challenging the law — was within its rights to sue Texas.

Senate Bill 8, which went into effect September 1, allows any private citizen to file suit anywhere in the state against anyone who performs, induces, or “aids or abets” an abortion. If successful in court, the plaintiff is entitled to at least $10,000 and does not have to pay attorneys’ fees; rather, defendants are required to pay all legal costs.

In September, most justices denied an emergency request to stop the law but agreed to quickly hear the challenges in person.

At the Nov. 1 hearing, it appeared that a few justices who had let the law stand — notably conservatives Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh — were now agreeing that its challengers, in particular the abortion provider Whole Woman’s Health, might have a legal basis to move forward.

“I think it’s pretty likely the Court is going to do something that allows ‘someone’s’ suit against SB 8 to go ahead,” tweeted Raffi Melkonian, a Houston attorney, after the hearing. “I don’t know when they’re going to do that.”

The Supreme Court usually issues its opinions months after arguments. Since these two challenges — Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson and US v. Texas —  were heard on a faster schedule, there’s speculation that a decision could also come quickly.

“The court clearly is in a hurry,” wrote Florida State University law professor Mary Ziegler before the hearing in a post on court-tracking site SCOTUSblog. She said the court seems to be taking the abortion issue as seriously as most Americans, and that the justices could rule before it hears oral arguments on December 1 in a Mississippi case directly challenging Roe v. Wade.

In addition, data shows abortions have been severely curtailed in Texas since the law took effect — by as much as 50% according to researchers at the University of Texas at Austin. They reported that 2,164 abortions were provided in September 2021, compared with 4,313 in September 2020.

“The actual provisions in this law have prevented every woman in Texas from exercising a constitutional right as declared by this court,” said Justice Elena Kagan, clarifying that it was every woman who had not made a decision by 6 weeks.

“Usually, in these chilling effect cases, we’re kind of guessing,” she said. “Here, we’re not guessing. We know exactly what has happened as a result of this law. It has chilled everybody on the ground.”

Judge Edward Stone II, an attorney with the Texas Attorney General’s Office who argued for the state, denied Justice Kagan’s assertion.

Nineteen medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Physicians, filed a friend of the court brief supporting both challenges, saying the Texas law allows legislators to interfere with the patient–doctor relationship and that it limits treatment options.

Texas argued that the only way to challenge the law at the federal level would be to be sued first.

Marc A. Hearron, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights who argued for Whole Woman’s Health, said that was untenable.

“What my friends on the other side are saying is that clinics should just violate the law,” and “subject themselves to the risk that they will be forced to close their doors,” said Mr. Hearron. 

But even if providers decide to violate the law, “they may not find physicians, nurses, ultrasound technicians, staff members willing to work behind the desk, because this law targets all of them,” he said.

Plus, clinics run the risk of becoming permanent defendants because the law does not prohibit multiple suits, he said.

Whole Woman’s Health asked the justices to stop the law by preventing the state’s clerks from filing cases.
 

Federal standing not as clear

The U.S. Department of Justice sued Texas on September 9, saying the law negated the constitutional right to an abortion.

“The Act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said at the time.

At the court, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar called it a “brazen attack” on the supremacy of federal law and said it would open the door to other states mounting similar challenges.

Justice Kagan seemed to agree.

“The entire point of this law, its purpose, and its effect is to find the chink in the armor of Ex parte Young,” a 1908 law that “set out a basic principle of how our government is supposed to work and how people can seek review of unconstitutional state laws,” she said, decrying that “after all these many years, some geniuses came up with a way to evade the commands of that decision.”

Judge Stone waved off the concerns. “Nothing in this law even pretends that Texas courts could evade that because it can’t,” he said.

“Essentially, we would be inviting states, all 50 of them, with respect to their unpreferred constitutional rights, to try to nullify the law — that this Court has laid down as to the content of those rights,” said Justice Kagan.

Justice Kavanaugh also seemed concerned about that possibility.

“It could be free speech rights. It could be free exercise of religion rights. It could be Second Amendment rights if this position is accepted here,” he said, citing a brief submitted by the Firearms Policy Coalition that supported the Whole Woman’s Health challenge.

Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed dubious that the Texas law would undercut anybody’s right to challenge.

“Often constitutional rights, of course, can only be enforced in a defensive posture, when an individual is faced either with potential liability, punitive damages, but also, of course, civil fines — fines and even criminal sanction, including prison time,” he said.

Judge Stone argued that the U.S. government is “not a proper plaintiff” and did not have the right to sue Texas or any of its officials because none were involved in enforcing the law. If the federal government didn’t like the law, it should ask Congress to fix it, said Judge Stone.

After the hearing, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton reiterated that position.

“The Biden Administration does not have the power to sue a state, such as Texas, just because it disagrees with a state law that protects the unborn,” he said in a statement.

A ruling on the challenges will not put an end to the litigation over SB 8.

“Even if the Supreme Court does rule that the abortion provider plaintiffs are allowed to sue, it is likely that there will still need to be more litigation in a federal trial court before SB 8 is actually determined to be unconstitutional and is blocked by a court order,” wrote Ian Millhiser, a Supreme Court scholar, after the hearing.

A federal judge in Austin did approve the Department of Justice’s request for a temporary halt to the law in October, but days later, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it could go back into effect while the legal questions were being pondered in the courts.

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

During over 3 hours of oral arguments on Nov. 1, a seeming majority of Supreme Court justices appeared receptive to blocking a Texas law that essentially bans abortion after 6 weeks.

They seemed less certain about whether the federal government — which is also challenging the law — was within its rights to sue Texas.

Senate Bill 8, which went into effect September 1, allows any private citizen to file suit anywhere in the state against anyone who performs, induces, or “aids or abets” an abortion. If successful in court, the plaintiff is entitled to at least $10,000 and does not have to pay attorneys’ fees; rather, defendants are required to pay all legal costs.

In September, most justices denied an emergency request to stop the law but agreed to quickly hear the challenges in person.

At the Nov. 1 hearing, it appeared that a few justices who had let the law stand — notably conservatives Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh — were now agreeing that its challengers, in particular the abortion provider Whole Woman’s Health, might have a legal basis to move forward.

“I think it’s pretty likely the Court is going to do something that allows ‘someone’s’ suit against SB 8 to go ahead,” tweeted Raffi Melkonian, a Houston attorney, after the hearing. “I don’t know when they’re going to do that.”

The Supreme Court usually issues its opinions months after arguments. Since these two challenges — Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson and US v. Texas —  were heard on a faster schedule, there’s speculation that a decision could also come quickly.

“The court clearly is in a hurry,” wrote Florida State University law professor Mary Ziegler before the hearing in a post on court-tracking site SCOTUSblog. She said the court seems to be taking the abortion issue as seriously as most Americans, and that the justices could rule before it hears oral arguments on December 1 in a Mississippi case directly challenging Roe v. Wade.

In addition, data shows abortions have been severely curtailed in Texas since the law took effect — by as much as 50% according to researchers at the University of Texas at Austin. They reported that 2,164 abortions were provided in September 2021, compared with 4,313 in September 2020.

“The actual provisions in this law have prevented every woman in Texas from exercising a constitutional right as declared by this court,” said Justice Elena Kagan, clarifying that it was every woman who had not made a decision by 6 weeks.

“Usually, in these chilling effect cases, we’re kind of guessing,” she said. “Here, we’re not guessing. We know exactly what has happened as a result of this law. It has chilled everybody on the ground.”

Judge Edward Stone II, an attorney with the Texas Attorney General’s Office who argued for the state, denied Justice Kagan’s assertion.

Nineteen medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Physicians, filed a friend of the court brief supporting both challenges, saying the Texas law allows legislators to interfere with the patient–doctor relationship and that it limits treatment options.

Texas argued that the only way to challenge the law at the federal level would be to be sued first.

Marc A. Hearron, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights who argued for Whole Woman’s Health, said that was untenable.

“What my friends on the other side are saying is that clinics should just violate the law,” and “subject themselves to the risk that they will be forced to close their doors,” said Mr. Hearron. 

But even if providers decide to violate the law, “they may not find physicians, nurses, ultrasound technicians, staff members willing to work behind the desk, because this law targets all of them,” he said.

Plus, clinics run the risk of becoming permanent defendants because the law does not prohibit multiple suits, he said.

Whole Woman’s Health asked the justices to stop the law by preventing the state’s clerks from filing cases.
 

Federal standing not as clear

The U.S. Department of Justice sued Texas on September 9, saying the law negated the constitutional right to an abortion.

“The Act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said at the time.

At the court, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar called it a “brazen attack” on the supremacy of federal law and said it would open the door to other states mounting similar challenges.

Justice Kagan seemed to agree.

“The entire point of this law, its purpose, and its effect is to find the chink in the armor of Ex parte Young,” a 1908 law that “set out a basic principle of how our government is supposed to work and how people can seek review of unconstitutional state laws,” she said, decrying that “after all these many years, some geniuses came up with a way to evade the commands of that decision.”

Judge Stone waved off the concerns. “Nothing in this law even pretends that Texas courts could evade that because it can’t,” he said.

“Essentially, we would be inviting states, all 50 of them, with respect to their unpreferred constitutional rights, to try to nullify the law — that this Court has laid down as to the content of those rights,” said Justice Kagan.

Justice Kavanaugh also seemed concerned about that possibility.

“It could be free speech rights. It could be free exercise of religion rights. It could be Second Amendment rights if this position is accepted here,” he said, citing a brief submitted by the Firearms Policy Coalition that supported the Whole Woman’s Health challenge.

Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed dubious that the Texas law would undercut anybody’s right to challenge.

“Often constitutional rights, of course, can only be enforced in a defensive posture, when an individual is faced either with potential liability, punitive damages, but also, of course, civil fines — fines and even criminal sanction, including prison time,” he said.

Judge Stone argued that the U.S. government is “not a proper plaintiff” and did not have the right to sue Texas or any of its officials because none were involved in enforcing the law. If the federal government didn’t like the law, it should ask Congress to fix it, said Judge Stone.

After the hearing, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton reiterated that position.

“The Biden Administration does not have the power to sue a state, such as Texas, just because it disagrees with a state law that protects the unborn,” he said in a statement.

A ruling on the challenges will not put an end to the litigation over SB 8.

“Even if the Supreme Court does rule that the abortion provider plaintiffs are allowed to sue, it is likely that there will still need to be more litigation in a federal trial court before SB 8 is actually determined to be unconstitutional and is blocked by a court order,” wrote Ian Millhiser, a Supreme Court scholar, after the hearing.

A federal judge in Austin did approve the Department of Justice’s request for a temporary halt to the law in October, but days later, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it could go back into effect while the legal questions were being pondered in the courts.

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 27 announced stronger safety requirements for breast implants, restricting sales of implants only to providers and health facilities that review potential risks of the devices with patients before surgery, via a “Patient Decision Checklist.” The agency also placed a boxed warning – the strongest warning that the FDA requires – on all legally marketed breast implants.

“Protecting patients’ health when they are treated with a medical device is our most important priority,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “In recent years, the FDA has sought more ways to increase patients’ access to clear and understandable information about the benefits and risks of breast implants. By strengthening the safety requirements for manufacturers, the FDA is working to close information gaps for anyone who may be considering breast implant surgery.”

This announcement comes 10 years after the FDA issued a comprehensive safety update on silicone gel–filled implants, which reported a possible association between these devices and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). The studies reviewed in the 2011 document also noted that a “significant percentage of women who receive silicone gel–filled breast implants experience complications and adverse outcomes,” the most common being repeat operation, implant removal, rupture, or capsular contracture (scar tissue tightening around the implant).

Breast augmentation has been one of the top five cosmetic procedures in the United States since 2006, according to the American Society for Plastic Surgery, with more than 400,000 people getting breast implants in 2019. Nearly 300,000 were for cosmetic reasons, and more than 100,000 were for breast reconstruction after mastectomies.

In 2019, the FDA proposed adding a boxed warning for breast implants, stating that the devices do not last an entire lifetime; that over time the risk for complications increases; and that breast implants have been associated with ALCL, and also may be associated with systemic symptoms such as fatigue, joint pain, and brain fog. The Oct. 27 FDA action now requires that manufacturers update breast implant packaging to include that information in a boxed warning, as well as the following:

• A patient-decision checklist
• Updated silicone gel–filled breast implant rupture screening recommendations
• A device description including materials used in the device
• Patient device ID cards

The updated label changes must be present on manufacturers’ websites in 30 days, the FDA said.

The new requirements have received largely positive reactions from both physicians and patient organizations. In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, the immediate past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said that “ASPS has always supported patients being fully informed about their choices and the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the options available. “We look forward to our continued collaboration with the FDA on the safety of implants and other devices.”

Maria Gmitro, president and cofounder of the Breast Implant Safety Alliance, an all-volunteer nonprofit based in Charleston, S.C., said that some of the language in the patient checklist could be stronger, especially when referring to breast implant–associated ALCL.

To inform patients of risks more clearly, “it’s the words like ‘associated with’ that we feel need to be stronger” she said in an interview. She also noted that women who already have breast implants may not be aware of these potential complications, which these new FDA requirements do not address.

But overall, the nonprofit was “thrilled” with the announcement, Ms. Gmitro said. “Placing restrictions on breast implants is a really big step, and we applaud the FDA’s efforts. This is information that every patient considering breast implants should know, and we’ve been advocating for better informed consent.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 27 announced stronger safety requirements for breast implants, restricting sales of implants only to providers and health facilities that review potential risks of the devices with patients before surgery, via a “Patient Decision Checklist.” The agency also placed a boxed warning – the strongest warning that the FDA requires – on all legally marketed breast implants.

“Protecting patients’ health when they are treated with a medical device is our most important priority,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “In recent years, the FDA has sought more ways to increase patients’ access to clear and understandable information about the benefits and risks of breast implants. By strengthening the safety requirements for manufacturers, the FDA is working to close information gaps for anyone who may be considering breast implant surgery.”

This announcement comes 10 years after the FDA issued a comprehensive safety update on silicone gel–filled implants, which reported a possible association between these devices and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). The studies reviewed in the 2011 document also noted that a “significant percentage of women who receive silicone gel–filled breast implants experience complications and adverse outcomes,” the most common being repeat operation, implant removal, rupture, or capsular contracture (scar tissue tightening around the implant).

Breast augmentation has been one of the top five cosmetic procedures in the United States since 2006, according to the American Society for Plastic Surgery, with more than 400,000 people getting breast implants in 2019. Nearly 300,000 were for cosmetic reasons, and more than 100,000 were for breast reconstruction after mastectomies.

In 2019, the FDA proposed adding a boxed warning for breast implants, stating that the devices do not last an entire lifetime; that over time the risk for complications increases; and that breast implants have been associated with ALCL, and also may be associated with systemic symptoms such as fatigue, joint pain, and brain fog. The Oct. 27 FDA action now requires that manufacturers update breast implant packaging to include that information in a boxed warning, as well as the following:

• A patient-decision checklist
• Updated silicone gel–filled breast implant rupture screening recommendations
• A device description including materials used in the device
• Patient device ID cards

The updated label changes must be present on manufacturers’ websites in 30 days, the FDA said.

The new requirements have received largely positive reactions from both physicians and patient organizations. In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, the immediate past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said that “ASPS has always supported patients being fully informed about their choices and the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the options available. “We look forward to our continued collaboration with the FDA on the safety of implants and other devices.”

Maria Gmitro, president and cofounder of the Breast Implant Safety Alliance, an all-volunteer nonprofit based in Charleston, S.C., said that some of the language in the patient checklist could be stronger, especially when referring to breast implant–associated ALCL.

To inform patients of risks more clearly, “it’s the words like ‘associated with’ that we feel need to be stronger” she said in an interview. She also noted that women who already have breast implants may not be aware of these potential complications, which these new FDA requirements do not address.

But overall, the nonprofit was “thrilled” with the announcement, Ms. Gmitro said. “Placing restrictions on breast implants is a really big step, and we applaud the FDA’s efforts. This is information that every patient considering breast implants should know, and we’ve been advocating for better informed consent.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 27 announced stronger safety requirements for breast implants, restricting sales of implants only to providers and health facilities that review potential risks of the devices with patients before surgery, via a “Patient Decision Checklist.” The agency also placed a boxed warning – the strongest warning that the FDA requires – on all legally marketed breast implants.

“Protecting patients’ health when they are treated with a medical device is our most important priority,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “In recent years, the FDA has sought more ways to increase patients’ access to clear and understandable information about the benefits and risks of breast implants. By strengthening the safety requirements for manufacturers, the FDA is working to close information gaps for anyone who may be considering breast implant surgery.”

This announcement comes 10 years after the FDA issued a comprehensive safety update on silicone gel–filled implants, which reported a possible association between these devices and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). The studies reviewed in the 2011 document also noted that a “significant percentage of women who receive silicone gel–filled breast implants experience complications and adverse outcomes,” the most common being repeat operation, implant removal, rupture, or capsular contracture (scar tissue tightening around the implant).

Breast augmentation has been one of the top five cosmetic procedures in the United States since 2006, according to the American Society for Plastic Surgery, with more than 400,000 people getting breast implants in 2019. Nearly 300,000 were for cosmetic reasons, and more than 100,000 were for breast reconstruction after mastectomies.

In 2019, the FDA proposed adding a boxed warning for breast implants, stating that the devices do not last an entire lifetime; that over time the risk for complications increases; and that breast implants have been associated with ALCL, and also may be associated with systemic symptoms such as fatigue, joint pain, and brain fog. The Oct. 27 FDA action now requires that manufacturers update breast implant packaging to include that information in a boxed warning, as well as the following:

• A patient-decision checklist
• Updated silicone gel–filled breast implant rupture screening recommendations
• A device description including materials used in the device
• Patient device ID cards

The updated label changes must be present on manufacturers’ websites in 30 days, the FDA said.

The new requirements have received largely positive reactions from both physicians and patient organizations. In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, the immediate past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said that “ASPS has always supported patients being fully informed about their choices and the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the options available. “We look forward to our continued collaboration with the FDA on the safety of implants and other devices.”

Maria Gmitro, president and cofounder of the Breast Implant Safety Alliance, an all-volunteer nonprofit based in Charleston, S.C., said that some of the language in the patient checklist could be stronger, especially when referring to breast implant–associated ALCL.

To inform patients of risks more clearly, “it’s the words like ‘associated with’ that we feel need to be stronger” she said in an interview. She also noted that women who already have breast implants may not be aware of these potential complications, which these new FDA requirements do not address.

But overall, the nonprofit was “thrilled” with the announcement, Ms. Gmitro said. “Placing restrictions on breast implants is a really big step, and we applaud the FDA’s efforts. This is information that every patient considering breast implants should know, and we’ve been advocating for better informed consent.”

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

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as biologics may carry an increased risk for preterm birth or cesarean delivery for pregnant women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to a recent study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

zoranm/Getty Images

The risk was particularly high for women with PsA who received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), according to Katarina Remaeus, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and colleagues.

“The results may indicate that a more severe or active PsA disease that requires antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy, especially bDMARDs, is associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to non-PsA pregnancies,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write in their study. “The risk of preterm birth in PsA pregnancies is further influenced by parity with the most increased risks observed in first pregnancies.”

In a nationwide, register-based cohort study, the researchers evaluated 921 pregnancies of women with PsA between 2007 and 2017, comparing them to the pregnancies of 9,210 women without PsA over the same time frame. The pregnancies for women with PsA were further categorized based on whether the women had not received antirheumatic treatment in the year prior to and/or during pregnancy (495 pregnancies) or had received antirheumatic treatment at any point in the year before and/or during pregnancy (426 pregnancies).

Of the women in the PsA group who were treated in the year prior to pregnancy (170 women), 39.4% received monotherapy with a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) such as an antimalarial, methotrexate, or sulfasalazine; 24.1% received oral corticosteroids, and 15.9% received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), whereas about 20% of women received two or more antirheumatic drugs.

In the group of women treated during pregnancy (256 women), 153 did not receive bDMARDs; of these, 41.8% had monotherapy with either a csDMARD or corticosteroids, whereas the group treated with bDMARDs received TNFi monotherapy (43.7%) or TNFi with corticosteroids (35.9%), TNFi with csDMARD (9.7%), or TNFi with csDMARD plus corticosteroids (9.7%).

A majority of women in both groups (70.1%) were between ages 30 and 34 years (37.1%) or older than age 35 years (33%) and had delivered more than one child (63.2%). Women in the PsA group were more likely to be born in a Nordic country (91.8% vs. 82.8%), to have a body mass index between 30.0 and 60.0 kg/m² (19.9% vs. 12.6%), to be a smoker (9.2% vs. 5.3%), to have hypertension (1.4% vs. 0.8%) or diabetes (1.3% vs. 0.5%) prior to pregnancy, and to have a higher level of education (>12 years; 50.1% vs. 43.3%), compared with women in the non-PsA group.

The results showed women in the PsA group were more likely to experience preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.24) and undergo an elective (aOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.43-2.20) or emergency C-section (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.84). The group at highest risk for preterm birth with regard to parity was women with PsA having their first child (aOR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.43-10.95).

Women who received antirheumatic treatment were at greater risk for experiencing preterm birth (aOR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.49-3.56), and this risk was even higher for treatment with bDMARDs, compared with women without PsA (aOR, 4.49; 95% CI, 2.60-7.79). Use of bDMARDs also was associated with higher risks for spontaneous preterm birth (aOR, 4.73; 95% CI, 2.53-8.87), preterm birth between 32 and 36 weeks’ gestation (aOR, 5.06; 95% CI, 2.91-8.79), elective C-section (aOR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.61-4.59), emergency C-section (aOR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.04-4.07), and preeclampsia (aOR, 2.88, 95% CI, 1.35-6.17).

The researchers note that women with PsA should be evaluated for preterm birth particularly if they are having their first child, and “from a clinical point of view, all women with PsA, regardless of antirheumatic treatment, should be counseled about pregnancy outcomes and receive individualized monitoring during pregnancy.”

Are adverse outcomes linked to disease activity or treatment?

Patients in the study had a higher risk of adverse outcomes when they had a PsA diagnosis, and when they received antirheumatic treatment – but were the adverse outcomes associated with a patient’s high disease activity or need for antirheumatic treatment?

“Our interpretation is that a PsA disease that requires continued antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy is more severe than PsA that does not require treatment,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write. “Thus, the increased risk of adverse outcomes in pregnancies with maternal antirheumatic treatment is probably attributed to disease severity rather than an effect of the medication itself.”

Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Centre in Berlin, told this news organization that the results of the study are important because it is one of the first to report differences in risk in pregnancy outcomes for women with and without PsA.

“The information is relevant to guide rheumatologists in advising patients with PsA when planning the first or subsequent pregnancies,” she said. “The results are reassuring in reporting that the elevated risk for PsA patients for adverse pregnancy outcomes is low in patients not in need of antirheumatic medication, presumably in low-disease activity.”

However, the study is still unclear on whether the association with adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients is the result of higher disease activity or the need for antirheumatic treatment, she explained.

“It was only hypothesized that those patients under bDMARD treatment are/were in high disease activity. There [is] no information on disease activity in the data sources, which limits the results,” she said. “The investigation still does not solve the important question – if adverse pregnancy outcomes are rather related to high disease activity or the medication to treat this situation.”

There was no specific funding for this study. The study authors and Dr. Strangfeld have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as biologics may carry an increased risk for preterm birth or cesarean delivery for pregnant women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to a recent study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

zoranm/Getty Images

The risk was particularly high for women with PsA who received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), according to Katarina Remaeus, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and colleagues.

“The results may indicate that a more severe or active PsA disease that requires antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy, especially bDMARDs, is associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to non-PsA pregnancies,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write in their study. “The risk of preterm birth in PsA pregnancies is further influenced by parity with the most increased risks observed in first pregnancies.”

In a nationwide, register-based cohort study, the researchers evaluated 921 pregnancies of women with PsA between 2007 and 2017, comparing them to the pregnancies of 9,210 women without PsA over the same time frame. The pregnancies for women with PsA were further categorized based on whether the women had not received antirheumatic treatment in the year prior to and/or during pregnancy (495 pregnancies) or had received antirheumatic treatment at any point in the year before and/or during pregnancy (426 pregnancies).

Of the women in the PsA group who were treated in the year prior to pregnancy (170 women), 39.4% received monotherapy with a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) such as an antimalarial, methotrexate, or sulfasalazine; 24.1% received oral corticosteroids, and 15.9% received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), whereas about 20% of women received two or more antirheumatic drugs.

In the group of women treated during pregnancy (256 women), 153 did not receive bDMARDs; of these, 41.8% had monotherapy with either a csDMARD or corticosteroids, whereas the group treated with bDMARDs received TNFi monotherapy (43.7%) or TNFi with corticosteroids (35.9%), TNFi with csDMARD (9.7%), or TNFi with csDMARD plus corticosteroids (9.7%).

A majority of women in both groups (70.1%) were between ages 30 and 34 years (37.1%) or older than age 35 years (33%) and had delivered more than one child (63.2%). Women in the PsA group were more likely to be born in a Nordic country (91.8% vs. 82.8%), to have a body mass index between 30.0 and 60.0 kg/m² (19.9% vs. 12.6%), to be a smoker (9.2% vs. 5.3%), to have hypertension (1.4% vs. 0.8%) or diabetes (1.3% vs. 0.5%) prior to pregnancy, and to have a higher level of education (>12 years; 50.1% vs. 43.3%), compared with women in the non-PsA group.

The results showed women in the PsA group were more likely to experience preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.24) and undergo an elective (aOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.43-2.20) or emergency C-section (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.84). The group at highest risk for preterm birth with regard to parity was women with PsA having their first child (aOR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.43-10.95).

Women who received antirheumatic treatment were at greater risk for experiencing preterm birth (aOR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.49-3.56), and this risk was even higher for treatment with bDMARDs, compared with women without PsA (aOR, 4.49; 95% CI, 2.60-7.79). Use of bDMARDs also was associated with higher risks for spontaneous preterm birth (aOR, 4.73; 95% CI, 2.53-8.87), preterm birth between 32 and 36 weeks’ gestation (aOR, 5.06; 95% CI, 2.91-8.79), elective C-section (aOR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.61-4.59), emergency C-section (aOR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.04-4.07), and preeclampsia (aOR, 2.88, 95% CI, 1.35-6.17).

The researchers note that women with PsA should be evaluated for preterm birth particularly if they are having their first child, and “from a clinical point of view, all women with PsA, regardless of antirheumatic treatment, should be counseled about pregnancy outcomes and receive individualized monitoring during pregnancy.”

Are adverse outcomes linked to disease activity or treatment?

Patients in the study had a higher risk of adverse outcomes when they had a PsA diagnosis, and when they received antirheumatic treatment – but were the adverse outcomes associated with a patient’s high disease activity or need for antirheumatic treatment?

“Our interpretation is that a PsA disease that requires continued antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy is more severe than PsA that does not require treatment,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write. “Thus, the increased risk of adverse outcomes in pregnancies with maternal antirheumatic treatment is probably attributed to disease severity rather than an effect of the medication itself.”

Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Centre in Berlin, told this news organization that the results of the study are important because it is one of the first to report differences in risk in pregnancy outcomes for women with and without PsA.

“The information is relevant to guide rheumatologists in advising patients with PsA when planning the first or subsequent pregnancies,” she said. “The results are reassuring in reporting that the elevated risk for PsA patients for adverse pregnancy outcomes is low in patients not in need of antirheumatic medication, presumably in low-disease activity.”

However, the study is still unclear on whether the association with adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients is the result of higher disease activity or the need for antirheumatic treatment, she explained.

“It was only hypothesized that those patients under bDMARD treatment are/were in high disease activity. There [is] no information on disease activity in the data sources, which limits the results,” she said. “The investigation still does not solve the important question – if adverse pregnancy outcomes are rather related to high disease activity or the medication to treat this situation.”

There was no specific funding for this study. The study authors and Dr. Strangfeld have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as biologics may carry an increased risk for preterm birth or cesarean delivery for pregnant women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to a recent study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

zoranm/Getty Images

The risk was particularly high for women with PsA who received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), according to Katarina Remaeus, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and colleagues.

“The results may indicate that a more severe or active PsA disease that requires antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy, especially bDMARDs, is associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to non-PsA pregnancies,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write in their study. “The risk of preterm birth in PsA pregnancies is further influenced by parity with the most increased risks observed in first pregnancies.”

In a nationwide, register-based cohort study, the researchers evaluated 921 pregnancies of women with PsA between 2007 and 2017, comparing them to the pregnancies of 9,210 women without PsA over the same time frame. The pregnancies for women with PsA were further categorized based on whether the women had not received antirheumatic treatment in the year prior to and/or during pregnancy (495 pregnancies) or had received antirheumatic treatment at any point in the year before and/or during pregnancy (426 pregnancies).

Of the women in the PsA group who were treated in the year prior to pregnancy (170 women), 39.4% received monotherapy with a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) such as an antimalarial, methotrexate, or sulfasalazine; 24.1% received oral corticosteroids, and 15.9% received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), whereas about 20% of women received two or more antirheumatic drugs.

In the group of women treated during pregnancy (256 women), 153 did not receive bDMARDs; of these, 41.8% had monotherapy with either a csDMARD or corticosteroids, whereas the group treated with bDMARDs received TNFi monotherapy (43.7%) or TNFi with corticosteroids (35.9%), TNFi with csDMARD (9.7%), or TNFi with csDMARD plus corticosteroids (9.7%).

A majority of women in both groups (70.1%) were between ages 30 and 34 years (37.1%) or older than age 35 years (33%) and had delivered more than one child (63.2%). Women in the PsA group were more likely to be born in a Nordic country (91.8% vs. 82.8%), to have a body mass index between 30.0 and 60.0 kg/m² (19.9% vs. 12.6%), to be a smoker (9.2% vs. 5.3%), to have hypertension (1.4% vs. 0.8%) or diabetes (1.3% vs. 0.5%) prior to pregnancy, and to have a higher level of education (>12 years; 50.1% vs. 43.3%), compared with women in the non-PsA group.

The results showed women in the PsA group were more likely to experience preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.24) and undergo an elective (aOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.43-2.20) or emergency C-section (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.84). The group at highest risk for preterm birth with regard to parity was women with PsA having their first child (aOR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.43-10.95).

Women who received antirheumatic treatment were at greater risk for experiencing preterm birth (aOR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.49-3.56), and this risk was even higher for treatment with bDMARDs, compared with women without PsA (aOR, 4.49; 95% CI, 2.60-7.79). Use of bDMARDs also was associated with higher risks for spontaneous preterm birth (aOR, 4.73; 95% CI, 2.53-8.87), preterm birth between 32 and 36 weeks’ gestation (aOR, 5.06; 95% CI, 2.91-8.79), elective C-section (aOR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.61-4.59), emergency C-section (aOR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.04-4.07), and preeclampsia (aOR, 2.88, 95% CI, 1.35-6.17).

The researchers note that women with PsA should be evaluated for preterm birth particularly if they are having their first child, and “from a clinical point of view, all women with PsA, regardless of antirheumatic treatment, should be counseled about pregnancy outcomes and receive individualized monitoring during pregnancy.”

Are adverse outcomes linked to disease activity or treatment?

Patients in the study had a higher risk of adverse outcomes when they had a PsA diagnosis, and when they received antirheumatic treatment – but were the adverse outcomes associated with a patient’s high disease activity or need for antirheumatic treatment?

“Our interpretation is that a PsA disease that requires continued antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy is more severe than PsA that does not require treatment,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write. “Thus, the increased risk of adverse outcomes in pregnancies with maternal antirheumatic treatment is probably attributed to disease severity rather than an effect of the medication itself.”

Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Centre in Berlin, told this news organization that the results of the study are important because it is one of the first to report differences in risk in pregnancy outcomes for women with and without PsA.

“The information is relevant to guide rheumatologists in advising patients with PsA when planning the first or subsequent pregnancies,” she said. “The results are reassuring in reporting that the elevated risk for PsA patients for adverse pregnancy outcomes is low in patients not in need of antirheumatic medication, presumably in low-disease activity.”

However, the study is still unclear on whether the association with adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients is the result of higher disease activity or the need for antirheumatic treatment, she explained.

“It was only hypothesized that those patients under bDMARD treatment are/were in high disease activity. There [is] no information on disease activity in the data sources, which limits the results,” she said. “The investigation still does not solve the important question – if adverse pregnancy outcomes are rather related to high disease activity or the medication to treat this situation.”

There was no specific funding for this study. The study authors and Dr. Strangfeld have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) test is commonly ordered by gynecologists prior to surgical procedures, in the workup of bleeding abnormalities, and in the follow-up of ectopic and molar pregnancies, to name a few indications. In doing so, occasionally clinicians will find themselves in the diagnostic dilemma of discovering an inexplicable low-level elevation in hCG, such as in a postmenopausal patient. This clinical picture can be confusing and can be concerning for conditions such as postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). However, there can be benign causes of this phenomenon.¹ To prevent unnecessary worry, investigation of treatments is important. In fact, misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment of benign, low-level hCG levels with unnecessary chemotherapy is problematic mismanagement of gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD), and a major cause of litigation.

Human chorionic gonadotropin is a glycoprotein hormone with two subunits (alpha and beta). It can come from multiple sources, including trophoblastic cells, malignant trophoblastic cells, the pituitary gland, and exogenous sources.¹ Its alpha-subunit is identical to that of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). Its beta-subunit is unique, though very similar to that of LH. The free hCG beta subunit can be produced by nontrophoblastic neoplasms. The gene for the beta subunit of hCG is in close proximity to the beta subunit of LH and increases in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) in menopause can result in the stimulation of both genes. Understanding the sources of hCG-like glycoproteins and mechanisms for testing is important when considering possible causes for falsely elevated hCG.

Most commercially available serum hCG assays detect normal intact hCG and free beta subunits. They are typically sandwich assays utilizing antibody binding sites in which a solid-phase anti-hCG antibody to a specific hCG target is then mixed with the patient’s serum, trapping or binding the hCG, which is then treated with an indicator antibody. After being washed with the indicator or “capture” antibody, its relative (quantitative) levels can be measured.¹

Urine hCG testing (such as urine pregnancy tests) work through capillary action, drawing the patient’s urine across absorbent pads before reaching a pad which contains anti-hCG antibodies (the detection zone) in the test line. These tests are less sensitive than serum tests, but many can detect hCG levels <15-20 mIU/mL.¹

When ob.gyns. are asked to consult on or evaluate persistently low-level elevations of hCG in nonpregnant patients they should consider both malignant and nonmalignant etiologies. Malignant causes include GTN or quiescent GTD (e.g., after treatment of a molar pregnancy or GTN), choriocarcinoma (e.g., ovarian germ cell tumors), and nonchoriocarcinoma malignancies (such as cervical, pancreatic, breast, renal). Nonmalignant causes of hCG elevations in nonpregnant patients include pituitary hCG (in postmenopausal patients), exogenous hCG, and phantom hCG.

The first step in diagnostic workup is to perform a urine pregnancy test. Provided that the serum hCG level is > 20 mIU/mL, the urine HCG should be positive unless the cause of elevated levels is “phantom hCG” from heterophilic antibodies. When patients are exposed to animal antigens (such as in vaccines) they can develop antibodies such as human anti-mouse antibody. These antibodies have affinity to the binding antibodies used in many hCG sandwich assays and form a linkage between the solid phase antibody and the detection antibody creating a false-positive result. This false-positive test is only present in serum testing but not urine tests because the patient’s heterophilic antibodies are not excreted by the kidney and thus not available to create a false-positive result. An alternative method to make the diagnosis of phantom hCG is to request that the hCG testing be run at a different lab with a different assay (which may not react with the same affinity to the patient’s anti-animal heterophile antibodies), or to request that the lab perform serial dilutions. If phantom hCG from heterophile antibodies is at play, serial dilutions will result in a nonlinear dilution response.

If the patient’s urine hCG test is positive, then pregnancy should be ruled out with a transvaginal ultrasound. If negative, an ectopic pregnancy should still be considered (unless not medically plausible, such as in postmenopausal women or women who have undergone hysterectomy). In the absence of an intrauterine or ectopic pregnancy, a positive serum and urine pregnancy test could be from exogenous hCG, from malignancy or pituitary hCG. Use of exogenous hCG can be ruled out by taking a thorough history, with particular focus on asking about weight loss medications and muscle building therapies.

If pregnancy and exogenous hCG are ruled out, clinicians should assess for an occult hCG-secreting malignancy. The lab should be asked to measure the proportion of the free beta subunit of hCG, as this is typically what is secreted by malignancies. CT imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis to search for an occult primary tumor should take place. If the patient has been recently treated for molar pregnancy or GTN, and serum hCG levels reside between 100 and 300 mIU/mL, quiescent GTD should be considered the diagnosis. Determination of the proportion of hyperglycosylated hCG to total hCG can help differentiate active choriocarcinoma from quiescent GTD. After restaging imaging has been done to confirm no measurable metastatic foci, observation can follow with monthly hCG measurements. The majority of these cases will eventually resolve without intervention within a year. Quiescent GTD and persistent low-level HCG in the absence of measurable GTN on imaging or symptoms does not require treatment with chemotherapy or hysterectomy, particularly in women who desire future fertility.²

Once occult malignancy has been ruled out, the remaining potential source of hCG is the pituitary gland. As mentioned earlier, hCG shares its morphology with TSH, LH, and FSH. This can result in cross reactivity and false positives. In the menopausal state, GnRH levels increase and thus so do pituitary LH and hCG levels. To confirm that the pituitary is the source of the low-level hCG levels, the provider should prescribe a course of hormonal treatment such as an oral contraceptive pill for a 2- to 3-month period. This should result in suppression of pituitary hCG, and serum hCG levels, as part of a negative feedback loop. Pituitary source of hCG is a benign condition, and, like quiescent GTD, phantom hCG or exogenous hCG does not require intervention.

Getting to the bottom of persistent low-level hCG elevations can be challenging. By following the step-wise algorithm listed here, clinicians can sequentially test for urine hCG, heterophilic antibodies, elevated free beta-subunit, occult malignancy, and pituitary hCG.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1. Oyatogun O et al. Ther Adv Reprod Health 2021 Jun 13. doi: 10.1177/2F26334941211016412.

2. Soper JT. Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb 1;137(2):355-70.

A human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) test is commonly ordered by gynecologists prior to surgical procedures, in the workup of bleeding abnormalities, and in the follow-up of ectopic and molar pregnancies, to name a few indications. In doing so, occasionally clinicians will find themselves in the diagnostic dilemma of discovering an inexplicable low-level elevation in hCG, such as in a postmenopausal patient. This clinical picture can be confusing and can be concerning for conditions such as postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). However, there can be benign causes of this phenomenon.¹ To prevent unnecessary worry, investigation of treatments is important. In fact, misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment of benign, low-level hCG levels with unnecessary chemotherapy is problematic mismanagement of gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD), and a major cause of litigation.

Human chorionic gonadotropin is a glycoprotein hormone with two subunits (alpha and beta). It can come from multiple sources, including trophoblastic cells, malignant trophoblastic cells, the pituitary gland, and exogenous sources.¹ Its alpha-subunit is identical to that of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). Its beta-subunit is unique, though very similar to that of LH. The free hCG beta subunit can be produced by nontrophoblastic neoplasms. The gene for the beta subunit of hCG is in close proximity to the beta subunit of LH and increases in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) in menopause can result in the stimulation of both genes. Understanding the sources of hCG-like glycoproteins and mechanisms for testing is important when considering possible causes for falsely elevated hCG.

Most commercially available serum hCG assays detect normal intact hCG and free beta subunits. They are typically sandwich assays utilizing antibody binding sites in which a solid-phase anti-hCG antibody to a specific hCG target is then mixed with the patient’s serum, trapping or binding the hCG, which is then treated with an indicator antibody. After being washed with the indicator or “capture” antibody, its relative (quantitative) levels can be measured.¹

Urine hCG testing (such as urine pregnancy tests) work through capillary action, drawing the patient’s urine across absorbent pads before reaching a pad which contains anti-hCG antibodies (the detection zone) in the test line. These tests are less sensitive than serum tests, but many can detect hCG levels <15-20 mIU/mL.¹

When ob.gyns. are asked to consult on or evaluate persistently low-level elevations of hCG in nonpregnant patients they should consider both malignant and nonmalignant etiologies. Malignant causes include GTN or quiescent GTD (e.g., after treatment of a molar pregnancy or GTN), choriocarcinoma (e.g., ovarian germ cell tumors), and nonchoriocarcinoma malignancies (such as cervical, pancreatic, breast, renal). Nonmalignant causes of hCG elevations in nonpregnant patients include pituitary hCG (in postmenopausal patients), exogenous hCG, and phantom hCG.

The first step in diagnostic workup is to perform a urine pregnancy test. Provided that the serum hCG level is > 20 mIU/mL, the urine HCG should be positive unless the cause of elevated levels is “phantom hCG” from heterophilic antibodies. When patients are exposed to animal antigens (such as in vaccines) they can develop antibodies such as human anti-mouse antibody. These antibodies have affinity to the binding antibodies used in many hCG sandwich assays and form a linkage between the solid phase antibody and the detection antibody creating a false-positive result. This false-positive test is only present in serum testing but not urine tests because the patient’s heterophilic antibodies are not excreted by the kidney and thus not available to create a false-positive result. An alternative method to make the diagnosis of phantom hCG is to request that the hCG testing be run at a different lab with a different assay (which may not react with the same affinity to the patient’s anti-animal heterophile antibodies), or to request that the lab perform serial dilutions. If phantom hCG from heterophile antibodies is at play, serial dilutions will result in a nonlinear dilution response.

If the patient’s urine hCG test is positive, then pregnancy should be ruled out with a transvaginal ultrasound. If negative, an ectopic pregnancy should still be considered (unless not medically plausible, such as in postmenopausal women or women who have undergone hysterectomy). In the absence of an intrauterine or ectopic pregnancy, a positive serum and urine pregnancy test could be from exogenous hCG, from malignancy or pituitary hCG. Use of exogenous hCG can be ruled out by taking a thorough history, with particular focus on asking about weight loss medications and muscle building therapies.

If pregnancy and exogenous hCG are ruled out, clinicians should assess for an occult hCG-secreting malignancy. The lab should be asked to measure the proportion of the free beta subunit of hCG, as this is typically what is secreted by malignancies. CT imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis to search for an occult primary tumor should take place. If the patient has been recently treated for molar pregnancy or GTN, and serum hCG levels reside between 100 and 300 mIU/mL, quiescent GTD should be considered the diagnosis. Determination of the proportion of hyperglycosylated hCG to total hCG can help differentiate active choriocarcinoma from quiescent GTD. After restaging imaging has been done to confirm no measurable metastatic foci, observation can follow with monthly hCG measurements. The majority of these cases will eventually resolve without intervention within a year. Quiescent GTD and persistent low-level HCG in the absence of measurable GTN on imaging or symptoms does not require treatment with chemotherapy or hysterectomy, particularly in women who desire future fertility.²

Once occult malignancy has been ruled out, the remaining potential source of hCG is the pituitary gland. As mentioned earlier, hCG shares its morphology with TSH, LH, and FSH. This can result in cross reactivity and false positives. In the menopausal state, GnRH levels increase and thus so do pituitary LH and hCG levels. To confirm that the pituitary is the source of the low-level hCG levels, the provider should prescribe a course of hormonal treatment such as an oral contraceptive pill for a 2- to 3-month period. This should result in suppression of pituitary hCG, and serum hCG levels, as part of a negative feedback loop. Pituitary source of hCG is a benign condition, and, like quiescent GTD, phantom hCG or exogenous hCG does not require intervention.

Getting to the bottom of persistent low-level hCG elevations can be challenging. By following the step-wise algorithm listed here, clinicians can sequentially test for urine hCG, heterophilic antibodies, elevated free beta-subunit, occult malignancy, and pituitary hCG.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1. Oyatogun O et al. Ther Adv Reprod Health 2021 Jun 13. doi: 10.1177/2F26334941211016412.

2. Soper JT. Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb 1;137(2):355-70.

A human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) test is commonly ordered by gynecologists prior to surgical procedures, in the workup of bleeding abnormalities, and in the follow-up of ectopic and molar pregnancies, to name a few indications. In doing so, occasionally clinicians will find themselves in the diagnostic dilemma of discovering an inexplicable low-level elevation in hCG, such as in a postmenopausal patient. This clinical picture can be confusing and can be concerning for conditions such as postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). However, there can be benign causes of this phenomenon.¹ To prevent unnecessary worry, investigation of treatments is important. In fact, misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment of benign, low-level hCG levels with unnecessary chemotherapy is problematic mismanagement of gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD), and a major cause of litigation.

Human chorionic gonadotropin is a glycoprotein hormone with two subunits (alpha and beta). It can come from multiple sources, including trophoblastic cells, malignant trophoblastic cells, the pituitary gland, and exogenous sources.¹ Its alpha-subunit is identical to that of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). Its beta-subunit is unique, though very similar to that of LH. The free hCG beta subunit can be produced by nontrophoblastic neoplasms. The gene for the beta subunit of hCG is in close proximity to the beta subunit of LH and increases in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) in menopause can result in the stimulation of both genes. Understanding the sources of hCG-like glycoproteins and mechanisms for testing is important when considering possible causes for falsely elevated hCG.

Most commercially available serum hCG assays detect normal intact hCG and free beta subunits. They are typically sandwich assays utilizing antibody binding sites in which a solid-phase anti-hCG antibody to a specific hCG target is then mixed with the patient’s serum, trapping or binding the hCG, which is then treated with an indicator antibody. After being washed with the indicator or “capture” antibody, its relative (quantitative) levels can be measured.¹

Urine hCG testing (such as urine pregnancy tests) work through capillary action, drawing the patient’s urine across absorbent pads before reaching a pad which contains anti-hCG antibodies (the detection zone) in the test line. These tests are less sensitive than serum tests, but many can detect hCG levels <15-20 mIU/mL.¹

When ob.gyns. are asked to consult on or evaluate persistently low-level elevations of hCG in nonpregnant patients they should consider both malignant and nonmalignant etiologies. Malignant causes include GTN or quiescent GTD (e.g., after treatment of a molar pregnancy or GTN), choriocarcinoma (e.g., ovarian germ cell tumors), and nonchoriocarcinoma malignancies (such as cervical, pancreatic, breast, renal). Nonmalignant causes of hCG elevations in nonpregnant patients include pituitary hCG (in postmenopausal patients), exogenous hCG, and phantom hCG.

The first step in diagnostic workup is to perform a urine pregnancy test. Provided that the serum hCG level is > 20 mIU/mL, the urine HCG should be positive unless the cause of elevated levels is “phantom hCG” from heterophilic antibodies. When patients are exposed to animal antigens (such as in vaccines) they can develop antibodies such as human anti-mouse antibody. These antibodies have affinity to the binding antibodies used in many hCG sandwich assays and form a linkage between the solid phase antibody and the detection antibody creating a false-positive result. This false-positive test is only present in serum testing but not urine tests because the patient’s heterophilic antibodies are not excreted by the kidney and thus not available to create a false-positive result. An alternative method to make the diagnosis of phantom hCG is to request that the hCG testing be run at a different lab with a different assay (which may not react with the same affinity to the patient’s anti-animal heterophile antibodies), or to request that the lab perform serial dilutions. If phantom hCG from heterophile antibodies is at play, serial dilutions will result in a nonlinear dilution response.

If the patient’s urine hCG test is positive, then pregnancy should be ruled out with a transvaginal ultrasound. If negative, an ectopic pregnancy should still be considered (unless not medically plausible, such as in postmenopausal women or women who have undergone hysterectomy). In the absence of an intrauterine or ectopic pregnancy, a positive serum and urine pregnancy test could be from exogenous hCG, from malignancy or pituitary hCG. Use of exogenous hCG can be ruled out by taking a thorough history, with particular focus on asking about weight loss medications and muscle building therapies.

If pregnancy and exogenous hCG are ruled out, clinicians should assess for an occult hCG-secreting malignancy. The lab should be asked to measure the proportion of the free beta subunit of hCG, as this is typically what is secreted by malignancies. CT imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis to search for an occult primary tumor should take place. If the patient has been recently treated for molar pregnancy or GTN, and serum hCG levels reside between 100 and 300 mIU/mL, quiescent GTD should be considered the diagnosis. Determination of the proportion of hyperglycosylated hCG to total hCG can help differentiate active choriocarcinoma from quiescent GTD. After restaging imaging has been done to confirm no measurable metastatic foci, observation can follow with monthly hCG measurements. The majority of these cases will eventually resolve without intervention within a year. Quiescent GTD and persistent low-level HCG in the absence of measurable GTN on imaging or symptoms does not require treatment with chemotherapy or hysterectomy, particularly in women who desire future fertility.²

Once occult malignancy has been ruled out, the remaining potential source of hCG is the pituitary gland. As mentioned earlier, hCG shares its morphology with TSH, LH, and FSH. This can result in cross reactivity and false positives. In the menopausal state, GnRH levels increase and thus so do pituitary LH and hCG levels. To confirm that the pituitary is the source of the low-level hCG levels, the provider should prescribe a course of hormonal treatment such as an oral contraceptive pill for a 2- to 3-month period. This should result in suppression of pituitary hCG, and serum hCG levels, as part of a negative feedback loop. Pituitary source of hCG is a benign condition, and, like quiescent GTD, phantom hCG or exogenous hCG does not require intervention.

Getting to the bottom of persistent low-level hCG elevations can be challenging. By following the step-wise algorithm listed here, clinicians can sequentially test for urine hCG, heterophilic antibodies, elevated free beta-subunit, occult malignancy, and pituitary hCG.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1. Oyatogun O et al. Ther Adv Reprod Health 2021 Jun 13. doi: 10.1177/2F26334941211016412.

2. Soper JT. Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb 1;137(2):355-70.

New evidence points to the importance of helping mothers with their mental health during pregnancy.

Researchers from the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., have found that feelings of stress or depression while pregnant are linked to changes in the placenta where the child is growing. The findings, published in Epigenomics, show these changes could alter gene activity.

Stress and depression are not uncommon among expectant women, with depression affecting an estimated 1 in 10 pregnancies, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

And current evidence already suggests that depression during pregnancy can negatively affect a child later in life. For instance, one study found that depression during pregnancy was linked to behavioral and emotional disorders during childhood, and another found that it raised the risk of depression at age 18.

To investigate stress and depression during pregnancy, the NIH investigators evaluated 301 pregnant women from 12 clinics in the United States who had taken part in an earlier clinical study. The group was ethnically diverse, with 34% identifying as Hispanic, 26% as non-Hispanic White, 24% as non-Hispanic Black, and 17% as Asian or Pacific Islander.

At the start of the study, the women were asked to complete questionnaires routinely used to screen for stress and depression. They completed the questionnaire five more times during their pregnancies. Shortly after each woman gave birth, researchers took tissue samples from the placenta and analyzed the genetics.

The purpose of studying the placenta, according to lead researcher Markos Tesfaye, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH, is that chemical changes can regulate whether a nearby gene can be activated.

There is evidence that chemical modifications in the placenta can lead to changes in fetal tissues, such as the brain, he said. And the placenta is known for making neurotransmitters, which are needed for fetal brain development.

The team found 16 areas where changes to the exterior of placental DNA were linked to depression in the second or third trimester. They also found two areas where these changes were associated with stress in the third trimester.

“Maternal depression leaves signals in the placenta at genes critical for fetal brain programming,” said study author Fasil Tekola-Ayele, PhD, from the NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Two of the chemical changes linked to depression were near genes that are known to be involved with fetal brain development and neurologic and psychiatric illnesses.

“The findings illustrate that the developing fetus is sensitive to the mother›s condition during pregnancy, including maternal symptoms of low mood and perceived stress,” said Thalia K. Robakis, MD, from the women’s mental health program at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was not involved in the study.

But Dr. Robakis cautioned that no clinical outcomes were measured among the babies born, meaning that the study could not document any effects of maternal depression and stress on fetal development. Rather, the work contributes to figuring out what mechanisms are involved.

“Pregnant women should continue to focus on optimizing their own physical and mental health,” Dr. Robakis said. “And they should know that a happy, healthy mother is the most important factor supporting the development of a happy, healthy baby.”

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

New evidence points to the importance of helping mothers with their mental health during pregnancy.

Researchers from the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., have found that feelings of stress or depression while pregnant are linked to changes in the placenta where the child is growing. The findings, published in Epigenomics, show these changes could alter gene activity.

Stress and depression are not uncommon among expectant women, with depression affecting an estimated 1 in 10 pregnancies, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

And current evidence already suggests that depression during pregnancy can negatively affect a child later in life. For instance, one study found that depression during pregnancy was linked to behavioral and emotional disorders during childhood, and another found that it raised the risk of depression at age 18.

To investigate stress and depression during pregnancy, the NIH investigators evaluated 301 pregnant women from 12 clinics in the United States who had taken part in an earlier clinical study. The group was ethnically diverse, with 34% identifying as Hispanic, 26% as non-Hispanic White, 24% as non-Hispanic Black, and 17% as Asian or Pacific Islander.

At the start of the study, the women were asked to complete questionnaires routinely used to screen for stress and depression. They completed the questionnaire five more times during their pregnancies. Shortly after each woman gave birth, researchers took tissue samples from the placenta and analyzed the genetics.

The purpose of studying the placenta, according to lead researcher Markos Tesfaye, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH, is that chemical changes can regulate whether a nearby gene can be activated.

There is evidence that chemical modifications in the placenta can lead to changes in fetal tissues, such as the brain, he said. And the placenta is known for making neurotransmitters, which are needed for fetal brain development.

The team found 16 areas where changes to the exterior of placental DNA were linked to depression in the second or third trimester. They also found two areas where these changes were associated with stress in the third trimester.

“Maternal depression leaves signals in the placenta at genes critical for fetal brain programming,” said study author Fasil Tekola-Ayele, PhD, from the NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Two of the chemical changes linked to depression were near genes that are known to be involved with fetal brain development and neurologic and psychiatric illnesses.

“The findings illustrate that the developing fetus is sensitive to the mother›s condition during pregnancy, including maternal symptoms of low mood and perceived stress,” said Thalia K. Robakis, MD, from the women’s mental health program at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was not involved in the study.

But Dr. Robakis cautioned that no clinical outcomes were measured among the babies born, meaning that the study could not document any effects of maternal depression and stress on fetal development. Rather, the work contributes to figuring out what mechanisms are involved.

“Pregnant women should continue to focus on optimizing their own physical and mental health,” Dr. Robakis said. “And they should know that a happy, healthy mother is the most important factor supporting the development of a happy, healthy baby.”

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

New evidence points to the importance of helping mothers with their mental health during pregnancy.

Researchers from the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., have found that feelings of stress or depression while pregnant are linked to changes in the placenta where the child is growing. The findings, published in Epigenomics, show these changes could alter gene activity.

Stress and depression are not uncommon among expectant women, with depression affecting an estimated 1 in 10 pregnancies, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

And current evidence already suggests that depression during pregnancy can negatively affect a child later in life. For instance, one study found that depression during pregnancy was linked to behavioral and emotional disorders during childhood, and another found that it raised the risk of depression at age 18.

To investigate stress and depression during pregnancy, the NIH investigators evaluated 301 pregnant women from 12 clinics in the United States who had taken part in an earlier clinical study. The group was ethnically diverse, with 34% identifying as Hispanic, 26% as non-Hispanic White, 24% as non-Hispanic Black, and 17% as Asian or Pacific Islander.

At the start of the study, the women were asked to complete questionnaires routinely used to screen for stress and depression. They completed the questionnaire five more times during their pregnancies. Shortly after each woman gave birth, researchers took tissue samples from the placenta and analyzed the genetics.

The purpose of studying the placenta, according to lead researcher Markos Tesfaye, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH, is that chemical changes can regulate whether a nearby gene can be activated.

There is evidence that chemical modifications in the placenta can lead to changes in fetal tissues, such as the brain, he said. And the placenta is known for making neurotransmitters, which are needed for fetal brain development.

The team found 16 areas where changes to the exterior of placental DNA were linked to depression in the second or third trimester. They also found two areas where these changes were associated with stress in the third trimester.

“Maternal depression leaves signals in the placenta at genes critical for fetal brain programming,” said study author Fasil Tekola-Ayele, PhD, from the NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Two of the chemical changes linked to depression were near genes that are known to be involved with fetal brain development and neurologic and psychiatric illnesses.

“The findings illustrate that the developing fetus is sensitive to the mother›s condition during pregnancy, including maternal symptoms of low mood and perceived stress,” said Thalia K. Robakis, MD, from the women’s mental health program at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was not involved in the study.

But Dr. Robakis cautioned that no clinical outcomes were measured among the babies born, meaning that the study could not document any effects of maternal depression and stress on fetal development. Rather, the work contributes to figuring out what mechanisms are involved.

“Pregnant women should continue to focus on optimizing their own physical and mental health,” Dr. Robakis said. “And they should know that a happy, healthy mother is the most important factor supporting the development of a happy, healthy baby.”

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

Approximately 12,000 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed in women in the United States each year, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said B.J. Rimel, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in a presentation at the virtual Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

Despite increased cervical cancer prevention and screening efforts, the incidence of, and mortality from, cervical cancer has remained stable for the past 2 decades, said Dr. Rimel.

Cervical cancer is the only cancer that can be prevented by vaccination, Dr. Rimel noted. It is essential to identify the women who are dying from cervical cancer, as well as who gets screened, who gets vaccinated, and who ends up in clinical trials, she said.

Novel agents for treating cervical cancer suggest that improvement in stagnant mortality rates is possible, said Dr. Rimel. She noted recent studies of cemiplimab, tisotumab vedotin, and a combination therapy involving pembrolizumab and platinum/paclitaxel, with and without bevacizumab.

Dr. Rimel suggested several opportunities to improve the identification and treatment of cervical cancer: Treat it like a rare disease; address structural racism through clinical trials; create opportunities for low–socioeconomic status patients to be involved in research; and develop solutions according to location (urban vs. rural), she said.

Compared with other cancers, cervical cancer is relatively rare in the United States, Dr. Rimel said. However, “It is important that those with cervical cancer can get treated and get healed from the disease,” she said. To better identify the women with cervical cancer who need treatment and to get them into clinical trials, she suggested using strategies employed by rare disease groups, such as seeking out patient support groups and registries.

Significant racial and ethnic disparities persist in cervical cancer, Dr. Rimel emphasized. Data from the CDC show that Black and Hispanic women in the United States are diagnosed with cervical cancer more frequently than women of other races and ethnicities and are less likely to survive.

“Reimagine cervical cancer as a disease of patients who are historically underrepresented due to race, language, poverty, and location,” she said.

Improving equity in cervical cancer care involves structural and trial-specific issues, said Dr. Rimel. Structural issues start with addressing how women enter into the health care system, she said. Consider where women receive care, and whether women have the opportunity to be vaccinated, and later screened, she said. Consider barriers to cervical cancer trials in centers with larger underserved populations, not only cost or insurance, but also issues of language and trust between patients and health care providers, she noted.

To improve the equity of cervical cancer clinical trials, consider potential barriers to enrollment, she added.

“Low English fluency is a barrier to trial enrollment,” said Dr. Rimel. In-person translation is essential for consent to participate in a trial, and “clinical trial budgets must reflect this requirement,” she added. Patient-reported outcomes need to be in the patient’s preferred language, “this includes online content,” Dr. Rimel said.

Dr. Rimel presented other strategies for clinical trial designs to improve equity.

“Compensate patients for their travel, or provide them with tech to allow for off-site monitoring,” she proposed. Patients of lower socioeconomic status in rural and urban areas have different barriers to enrollment, but virtual visits might be an option for those able to access the Internet when given a device. For others, smaller trial sites closer to home, combined with compensation for travel or missed work, might create more opportunities to participate, Dr. Rimel said. Finally, researchers should consider potential roles for smaller or broader studies that involve less travel and testing that would be feasible for more patients who might not otherwise participate in a clinical trial, she concluded.

Dr. Rimel had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately 12,000 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed in women in the United States each year, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said B.J. Rimel, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in a presentation at the virtual Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

Despite increased cervical cancer prevention and screening efforts, the incidence of, and mortality from, cervical cancer has remained stable for the past 2 decades, said Dr. Rimel.

Cervical cancer is the only cancer that can be prevented by vaccination, Dr. Rimel noted. It is essential to identify the women who are dying from cervical cancer, as well as who gets screened, who gets vaccinated, and who ends up in clinical trials, she said.

Novel agents for treating cervical cancer suggest that improvement in stagnant mortality rates is possible, said Dr. Rimel. She noted recent studies of cemiplimab, tisotumab vedotin, and a combination therapy involving pembrolizumab and platinum/paclitaxel, with and without bevacizumab.

Dr. Rimel suggested several opportunities to improve the identification and treatment of cervical cancer: Treat it like a rare disease; address structural racism through clinical trials; create opportunities for low–socioeconomic status patients to be involved in research; and develop solutions according to location (urban vs. rural), she said.

Compared with other cancers, cervical cancer is relatively rare in the United States, Dr. Rimel said. However, “It is important that those with cervical cancer can get treated and get healed from the disease,” she said. To better identify the women with cervical cancer who need treatment and to get them into clinical trials, she suggested using strategies employed by rare disease groups, such as seeking out patient support groups and registries.

Significant racial and ethnic disparities persist in cervical cancer, Dr. Rimel emphasized. Data from the CDC show that Black and Hispanic women in the United States are diagnosed with cervical cancer more frequently than women of other races and ethnicities and are less likely to survive.

“Reimagine cervical cancer as a disease of patients who are historically underrepresented due to race, language, poverty, and location,” she said.

Improving equity in cervical cancer care involves structural and trial-specific issues, said Dr. Rimel. Structural issues start with addressing how women enter into the health care system, she said. Consider where women receive care, and whether women have the opportunity to be vaccinated, and later screened, she said. Consider barriers to cervical cancer trials in centers with larger underserved populations, not only cost or insurance, but also issues of language and trust between patients and health care providers, she noted.

To improve the equity of cervical cancer clinical trials, consider potential barriers to enrollment, she added.

“Low English fluency is a barrier to trial enrollment,” said Dr. Rimel. In-person translation is essential for consent to participate in a trial, and “clinical trial budgets must reflect this requirement,” she added. Patient-reported outcomes need to be in the patient’s preferred language, “this includes online content,” Dr. Rimel said.

Dr. Rimel presented other strategies for clinical trial designs to improve equity.

“Compensate patients for their travel, or provide them with tech to allow for off-site monitoring,” she proposed. Patients of lower socioeconomic status in rural and urban areas have different barriers to enrollment, but virtual visits might be an option for those able to access the Internet when given a device. For others, smaller trial sites closer to home, combined with compensation for travel or missed work, might create more opportunities to participate, Dr. Rimel said. Finally, researchers should consider potential roles for smaller or broader studies that involve less travel and testing that would be feasible for more patients who might not otherwise participate in a clinical trial, she concluded.

Dr. Rimel had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately 12,000 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed in women in the United States each year, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said B.J. Rimel, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in a presentation at the virtual Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

Despite increased cervical cancer prevention and screening efforts, the incidence of, and mortality from, cervical cancer has remained stable for the past 2 decades, said Dr. Rimel.

Cervical cancer is the only cancer that can be prevented by vaccination, Dr. Rimel noted. It is essential to identify the women who are dying from cervical cancer, as well as who gets screened, who gets vaccinated, and who ends up in clinical trials, she said.

Novel agents for treating cervical cancer suggest that improvement in stagnant mortality rates is possible, said Dr. Rimel. She noted recent studies of cemiplimab, tisotumab vedotin, and a combination therapy involving pembrolizumab and platinum/paclitaxel, with and without bevacizumab.

Dr. Rimel suggested several opportunities to improve the identification and treatment of cervical cancer: Treat it like a rare disease; address structural racism through clinical trials; create opportunities for low–socioeconomic status patients to be involved in research; and develop solutions according to location (urban vs. rural), she said.

Compared with other cancers, cervical cancer is relatively rare in the United States, Dr. Rimel said. However, “It is important that those with cervical cancer can get treated and get healed from the disease,” she said. To better identify the women with cervical cancer who need treatment and to get them into clinical trials, she suggested using strategies employed by rare disease groups, such as seeking out patient support groups and registries.

Significant racial and ethnic disparities persist in cervical cancer, Dr. Rimel emphasized. Data from the CDC show that Black and Hispanic women in the United States are diagnosed with cervical cancer more frequently than women of other races and ethnicities and are less likely to survive.

“Reimagine cervical cancer as a disease of patients who are historically underrepresented due to race, language, poverty, and location,” she said.

Improving equity in cervical cancer care involves structural and trial-specific issues, said Dr. Rimel. Structural issues start with addressing how women enter into the health care system, she said. Consider where women receive care, and whether women have the opportunity to be vaccinated, and later screened, she said. Consider barriers to cervical cancer trials in centers with larger underserved populations, not only cost or insurance, but also issues of language and trust between patients and health care providers, she noted.

To improve the equity of cervical cancer clinical trials, consider potential barriers to enrollment, she added.

“Low English fluency is a barrier to trial enrollment,” said Dr. Rimel. In-person translation is essential for consent to participate in a trial, and “clinical trial budgets must reflect this requirement,” she added. Patient-reported outcomes need to be in the patient’s preferred language, “this includes online content,” Dr. Rimel said.

Dr. Rimel presented other strategies for clinical trial designs to improve equity.

“Compensate patients for their travel, or provide them with tech to allow for off-site monitoring,” she proposed. Patients of lower socioeconomic status in rural and urban areas have different barriers to enrollment, but virtual visits might be an option for those able to access the Internet when given a device. For others, smaller trial sites closer to home, combined with compensation for travel or missed work, might create more opportunities to participate, Dr. Rimel said. Finally, researchers should consider potential roles for smaller or broader studies that involve less travel and testing that would be feasible for more patients who might not otherwise participate in a clinical trial, she concluded.

Dr. Rimel had no financial conflicts to disclose.

An increasing number of people who are unvaccinated and pregnant are being hospitalized for COVID-19, report investigators who saw hospital admissions double in a single year.

“With the surge, we had expected to begin treating patients who developed severe or critical illness again in pregnancy,” says Emily Adhikari, MD, from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “But we did not expect the level of respiratory illness that we began to see in our patients. That was a surprise and an alarming finding that we felt was really important to get out there.”

The researchers followed more than 1,500 pregnant women diagnosed with COVID-19 who received care from Parkland Health and Hospital System in Dallas County, one of the nation’s busiest for deliveries. After the emergence of the Delta variant, the number of pregnant women hospitalized with COVID-19 more than doubled over the previous year.

And 82 pregnant women went on to develop severe or critical COVID, they report in their study, published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. All but 1 of these patients were unvaccinated, 10 needed a ventilator, and two died.

The proportion of cases that were critical was about 5% in 2020. However, in April 2021, even though the number of total cases remained low, the number of severe illnesses started to rise. After the Delta variant became dominant, both the number and severity of cases increased, and after August 2021, more than 25% of pregnant people diagnosed with COVID-19 required hospitalization.
 

Hospitalizations Double

“We need to focus and really act urgently to recommend vaccination in pregnancy because that is the primary prevention tool that we have,” says Dr. Adhikari. “We do not have a proven cure for this illness, and that is important to know.”

These findings, which focus on a vulnerable population, are especially important given the elevated prevalence of COVID-19 in pregnant people of lower economic status, said Lissette Tanner, MD, MPH, from Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved with the study.

“There are higher rates of hospitalization and death among Black, Hispanic, and Native American communities,” she reported. “It is essential to know how the virus is affecting those most affected and often most disadvantaged to deal with the pandemic.”

Vaccination rates are low in this population; just 19.2% of pregnant women receive at least one dose during pregnancy, according to the CDC. But pregnancy confers a higher risk for severe COVID-19 illness and for adverse outcomes, such as preterm birth and stillbirth.

Of the 665 people in the study cohort who were pregnant or had given birth when the vaccines were available, only 21.4% received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Given the increased risk for COVID-19 during pregnancy, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and the CDC recommend vaccination for people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, or trying to get pregnant.

According to ACOG, pregnant women who are fully vaccinated can follow the same guidelines as everyone else who is fully vaccinated; however, to prevent breakthrough infections, they might want to continue wearing a mask. ACOG also recommends that those not fully vaccinated follow physical-distancing guidelines and limit contact with people as much as possible to avoid infection.

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

An increasing number of people who are unvaccinated and pregnant are being hospitalized for COVID-19, report investigators who saw hospital admissions double in a single year.

“With the surge, we had expected to begin treating patients who developed severe or critical illness again in pregnancy,” says Emily Adhikari, MD, from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “But we did not expect the level of respiratory illness that we began to see in our patients. That was a surprise and an alarming finding that we felt was really important to get out there.”

The researchers followed more than 1,500 pregnant women diagnosed with COVID-19 who received care from Parkland Health and Hospital System in Dallas County, one of the nation’s busiest for deliveries. After the emergence of the Delta variant, the number of pregnant women hospitalized with COVID-19 more than doubled over the previous year.

And 82 pregnant women went on to develop severe or critical COVID, they report in their study, published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. All but 1 of these patients were unvaccinated, 10 needed a ventilator, and two died.

The proportion of cases that were critical was about 5% in 2020. However, in April 2021, even though the number of total cases remained low, the number of severe illnesses started to rise. After the Delta variant became dominant, both the number and severity of cases increased, and after August 2021, more than 25% of pregnant people diagnosed with COVID-19 required hospitalization.
 

Hospitalizations Double

“We need to focus and really act urgently to recommend vaccination in pregnancy because that is the primary prevention tool that we have,” says Dr. Adhikari. “We do not have a proven cure for this illness, and that is important to know.”

These findings, which focus on a vulnerable population, are especially important given the elevated prevalence of COVID-19 in pregnant people of lower economic status, said Lissette Tanner, MD, MPH, from Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved with the study.

“There are higher rates of hospitalization and death among Black, Hispanic, and Native American communities,” she reported. “It is essential to know how the virus is affecting those most affected and often most disadvantaged to deal with the pandemic.”

Vaccination rates are low in this population; just 19.2% of pregnant women receive at least one dose during pregnancy, according to the CDC. But pregnancy confers a higher risk for severe COVID-19 illness and for adverse outcomes, such as preterm birth and stillbirth.

Of the 665 people in the study cohort who were pregnant or had given birth when the vaccines were available, only 21.4% received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Given the increased risk for COVID-19 during pregnancy, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and the CDC recommend vaccination for people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, or trying to get pregnant.

According to ACOG, pregnant women who are fully vaccinated can follow the same guidelines as everyone else who is fully vaccinated; however, to prevent breakthrough infections, they might want to continue wearing a mask. ACOG also recommends that those not fully vaccinated follow physical-distancing guidelines and limit contact with people as much as possible to avoid infection.

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

An increasing number of people who are unvaccinated and pregnant are being hospitalized for COVID-19, report investigators who saw hospital admissions double in a single year.

“With the surge, we had expected to begin treating patients who developed severe or critical illness again in pregnancy,” says Emily Adhikari, MD, from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “But we did not expect the level of respiratory illness that we began to see in our patients. That was a surprise and an alarming finding that we felt was really important to get out there.”

The researchers followed more than 1,500 pregnant women diagnosed with COVID-19 who received care from Parkland Health and Hospital System in Dallas County, one of the nation’s busiest for deliveries. After the emergence of the Delta variant, the number of pregnant women hospitalized with COVID-19 more than doubled over the previous year.

And 82 pregnant women went on to develop severe or critical COVID, they report in their study, published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. All but 1 of these patients were unvaccinated, 10 needed a ventilator, and two died.

The proportion of cases that were critical was about 5% in 2020. However, in April 2021, even though the number of total cases remained low, the number of severe illnesses started to rise. After the Delta variant became dominant, both the number and severity of cases increased, and after August 2021, more than 25% of pregnant people diagnosed with COVID-19 required hospitalization.
 

Hospitalizations Double

“We need to focus and really act urgently to recommend vaccination in pregnancy because that is the primary prevention tool that we have,” says Dr. Adhikari. “We do not have a proven cure for this illness, and that is important to know.”

These findings, which focus on a vulnerable population, are especially important given the elevated prevalence of COVID-19 in pregnant people of lower economic status, said Lissette Tanner, MD, MPH, from Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved with the study.

“There are higher rates of hospitalization and death among Black, Hispanic, and Native American communities,” she reported. “It is essential to know how the virus is affecting those most affected and often most disadvantaged to deal with the pandemic.”

Vaccination rates are low in this population; just 19.2% of pregnant women receive at least one dose during pregnancy, according to the CDC. But pregnancy confers a higher risk for severe COVID-19 illness and for adverse outcomes, such as preterm birth and stillbirth.

Of the 665 people in the study cohort who were pregnant or had given birth when the vaccines were available, only 21.4% received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Given the increased risk for COVID-19 during pregnancy, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and the CDC recommend vaccination for people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, or trying to get pregnant.

According to ACOG, pregnant women who are fully vaccinated can follow the same guidelines as everyone else who is fully vaccinated; however, to prevent breakthrough infections, they might want to continue wearing a mask. ACOG also recommends that those not fully vaccinated follow physical-distancing guidelines and limit contact with people as much as possible to avoid infection.

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

Implementing a selective type-and-screen blood testing policy in the labor and delivery unit was associated with projected annual savings of close to $200,000, a large single-center study found. Furthermore, there was no evidence of increased maternal morbidity in the university-based facility performing more than 4,400 deliveries per year, according to Ashley E. Benson, MD, MA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

The study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, evaluated patient safety, resource utilization, and transfusion-related costs after a policy change from universal type and screen to selective, risk-based type and screen on admission to labor and delivery.

“There had been some national interest in moving toward decreased resource utilization, and findings that universal screening was not cost effective,” Dr. Benson, who has since relocated to Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. An earlier cost-effective modeling study at her center had suggested that universal test and screen was not cost effective and likely not safer either. “So based on that data we felt an implementation study was warranted.”

The switch to a selective policy was made in 2018, after which her group compared outcomes from October 2017 to September 2019, looking those both 1 year preimplementation and 1 year post implementation.

One year post implementation, the following outcomes emerged, compared with preimplementation:

• Overall projected saving of $181,000 a year in the maternity unit
• Lower mean monthly type- and screen-related costs, such as those for ABO typing, antibody screen, and antibody workup. cross-matches, hold clots, and transfused products: $9,753 vs. $20,676 in the preimplementation year (P < .001)
• A lower mean monthly cost of total transfusion preparedness: $25,090 vs. $39,211 (P < .001)
• No differences in emergency-release transfusion events (four vs. three, P = .99),the study’s primary safety outcome
• Fewer emergency-release red blood cell units transfused (9 vs. 24, P = .002) and O-negative RBC units transfused (8 vs. 18, P = .016)
• No differences in hysterectomies (0.05% vs. 0.1%, P = .44) and ICU admissions (0.45% vs. 0.51%, P = .43)

“In a year of selective type and screen, we saw a 51% reduction in costs related to type and screen, and a 38% reduction in overall transfusion-related costs,” the authors wrote. “This study supports other literature suggesting that more judicious use of type and screen may be safe and cost effective.”

Dr. Benson said the results were positively received when presented a meeting 2 years ago but the published version has yet to prompt feedback.
 

The study

Antepartum patients underwent transfusion preparedness tests according to the center’s standard antenatal admission order sets and were risk stratified in alignment with California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative recommendations. The mean maternal age of patients in both time periods was similar at just over 29 years and the mean gestational age at delivery was just under 38 weeks.

Under the new policy, a “hold clot” is obtained for women stratified as low or medium risk on admission. In this instance, a tube of patient blood is held in the blood bank but processed only if needed, as in the event of active hemorrhage or an order for transfusion. A blood cross-match is obtained on all women stratified as high risk or having a prior positive antibody screen.

Relevant costs were the direct costs of transfusion-related testing in the labor and delivery unit from a health system perspective.

Obstetric hemorrhage is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide, the authors pointed out. While transfusion in obstetric patients occurs in only 1% or 2% of all deliveries it is nevertheless difficult to predict which patients will need transfusion, with only 2%-8% of those stratified as high risk ultimately requiring transfusion. Although obstetric hemorrhage safety bundles recommend risk stratification on admission to labor and delivery with selective type and screen for higher-risk individuals, for safety and simplicity’s sake, many labor and delivery units perform universal type and screen.

The authors cautioned that these results occurred in an academic tertiary care center with systems fine-tuned to deal with active hemorrhage and deliver timely transfusable blood. “At the moment we don’t have enough data to say whether the selective approach would be safe in hospitals with more limited blood bank capacity and access and fewer transfusion specialists in a setting optimized to respond to emergent needs, Dr. Benson said.

Katayoun F. M. Fomani, MD, a transfusion medicine specialist and medical director of blood bank and transfusion services at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New York, agreed. “This approach only works in a controlled environment such as in this study where eligible women were assessed antenatally at the same center, but it would not work at every institution,” she said in an interview. “In addition, all patients were assessed according to the California Collaborative guideline, which itself increases the safety level but is not followed everywhere.”

The obstetric division at her hospital in New York adheres to the universal type and screen. “We have patients coming in from outside whose antenatal testing was not done at our hospital,” she said. “For this selective approach to work you need a controlled population and the electronic resources and personnel to follow each patient carefully.”

The authors indicated no specific funding for this study and disclosed no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Fomani had no potential competing interests to declare.

Implementing a selective type-and-screen blood testing policy in the labor and delivery unit was associated with projected annual savings of close to $200,000, a large single-center study found. Furthermore, there was no evidence of increased maternal morbidity in the university-based facility performing more than 4,400 deliveries per year, according to Ashley E. Benson, MD, MA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

The study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, evaluated patient safety, resource utilization, and transfusion-related costs after a policy change from universal type and screen to selective, risk-based type and screen on admission to labor and delivery.

“There had been some national interest in moving toward decreased resource utilization, and findings that universal screening was not cost effective,” Dr. Benson, who has since relocated to Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. An earlier cost-effective modeling study at her center had suggested that universal test and screen was not cost effective and likely not safer either. “So based on that data we felt an implementation study was warranted.”

The switch to a selective policy was made in 2018, after which her group compared outcomes from October 2017 to September 2019, looking those both 1 year preimplementation and 1 year post implementation.

One year post implementation, the following outcomes emerged, compared with preimplementation:

• Overall projected saving of $181,000 a year in the maternity unit
• Lower mean monthly type- and screen-related costs, such as those for ABO typing, antibody screen, and antibody workup. cross-matches, hold clots, and transfused products: $9,753 vs. $20,676 in the preimplementation year (P < .001)
• A lower mean monthly cost of total transfusion preparedness: $25,090 vs. $39,211 (P < .001)
• No differences in emergency-release transfusion events (four vs. three, P = .99),the study’s primary safety outcome
• Fewer emergency-release red blood cell units transfused (9 vs. 24, P = .002) and O-negative RBC units transfused (8 vs. 18, P = .016)
• No differences in hysterectomies (0.05% vs. 0.1%, P = .44) and ICU admissions (0.45% vs. 0.51%, P = .43)

“In a year of selective type and screen, we saw a 51% reduction in costs related to type and screen, and a 38% reduction in overall transfusion-related costs,” the authors wrote. “This study supports other literature suggesting that more judicious use of type and screen may be safe and cost effective.”

Dr. Benson said the results were positively received when presented a meeting 2 years ago but the published version has yet to prompt feedback.
 

The study

Antepartum patients underwent transfusion preparedness tests according to the center’s standard antenatal admission order sets and were risk stratified in alignment with California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative recommendations. The mean maternal age of patients in both time periods was similar at just over 29 years and the mean gestational age at delivery was just under 38 weeks.

Under the new policy, a “hold clot” is obtained for women stratified as low or medium risk on admission. In this instance, a tube of patient blood is held in the blood bank but processed only if needed, as in the event of active hemorrhage or an order for transfusion. A blood cross-match is obtained on all women stratified as high risk or having a prior positive antibody screen.

Relevant costs were the direct costs of transfusion-related testing in the labor and delivery unit from a health system perspective.

Obstetric hemorrhage is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide, the authors pointed out. While transfusion in obstetric patients occurs in only 1% or 2% of all deliveries it is nevertheless difficult to predict which patients will need transfusion, with only 2%-8% of those stratified as high risk ultimately requiring transfusion. Although obstetric hemorrhage safety bundles recommend risk stratification on admission to labor and delivery with selective type and screen for higher-risk individuals, for safety and simplicity’s sake, many labor and delivery units perform universal type and screen.

The authors cautioned that these results occurred in an academic tertiary care center with systems fine-tuned to deal with active hemorrhage and deliver timely transfusable blood. “At the moment we don’t have enough data to say whether the selective approach would be safe in hospitals with more limited blood bank capacity and access and fewer transfusion specialists in a setting optimized to respond to emergent needs, Dr. Benson said.

Katayoun F. M. Fomani, MD, a transfusion medicine specialist and medical director of blood bank and transfusion services at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New York, agreed. “This approach only works in a controlled environment such as in this study where eligible women were assessed antenatally at the same center, but it would not work at every institution,” she said in an interview. “In addition, all patients were assessed according to the California Collaborative guideline, which itself increases the safety level but is not followed everywhere.”

The obstetric division at her hospital in New York adheres to the universal type and screen. “We have patients coming in from outside whose antenatal testing was not done at our hospital,” she said. “For this selective approach to work you need a controlled population and the electronic resources and personnel to follow each patient carefully.”

The authors indicated no specific funding for this study and disclosed no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Fomani had no potential competing interests to declare.

Implementing a selective type-and-screen blood testing policy in the labor and delivery unit was associated with projected annual savings of close to $200,000, a large single-center study found. Furthermore, there was no evidence of increased maternal morbidity in the university-based facility performing more than 4,400 deliveries per year, according to Ashley E. Benson, MD, MA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

The study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, evaluated patient safety, resource utilization, and transfusion-related costs after a policy change from universal type and screen to selective, risk-based type and screen on admission to labor and delivery.

“There had been some national interest in moving toward decreased resource utilization, and findings that universal screening was not cost effective,” Dr. Benson, who has since relocated to Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. An earlier cost-effective modeling study at her center had suggested that universal test and screen was not cost effective and likely not safer either. “So based on that data we felt an implementation study was warranted.”

The switch to a selective policy was made in 2018, after which her group compared outcomes from October 2017 to September 2019, looking those both 1 year preimplementation and 1 year post implementation.

One year post implementation, the following outcomes emerged, compared with preimplementation:

• Overall projected saving of $181,000 a year in the maternity unit
• Lower mean monthly type- and screen-related costs, such as those for ABO typing, antibody screen, and antibody workup. cross-matches, hold clots, and transfused products: $9,753 vs. $20,676 in the preimplementation year (P < .001)
• A lower mean monthly cost of total transfusion preparedness: $25,090 vs. $39,211 (P < .001)
• No differences in emergency-release transfusion events (four vs. three, P = .99),the study’s primary safety outcome
• Fewer emergency-release red blood cell units transfused (9 vs. 24, P = .002) and O-negative RBC units transfused (8 vs. 18, P = .016)
• No differences in hysterectomies (0.05% vs. 0.1%, P = .44) and ICU admissions (0.45% vs. 0.51%, P = .43)

“In a year of selective type and screen, we saw a 51% reduction in costs related to type and screen, and a 38% reduction in overall transfusion-related costs,” the authors wrote. “This study supports other literature suggesting that more judicious use of type and screen may be safe and cost effective.”

Dr. Benson said the results were positively received when presented a meeting 2 years ago but the published version has yet to prompt feedback.
 

The study

Antepartum patients underwent transfusion preparedness tests according to the center’s standard antenatal admission order sets and were risk stratified in alignment with California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative recommendations. The mean maternal age of patients in both time periods was similar at just over 29 years and the mean gestational age at delivery was just under 38 weeks.

Under the new policy, a “hold clot” is obtained for women stratified as low or medium risk on admission. In this instance, a tube of patient blood is held in the blood bank but processed only if needed, as in the event of active hemorrhage or an order for transfusion. A blood cross-match is obtained on all women stratified as high risk or having a prior positive antibody screen.

Relevant costs were the direct costs of transfusion-related testing in the labor and delivery unit from a health system perspective.

Obstetric hemorrhage is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide, the authors pointed out. While transfusion in obstetric patients occurs in only 1% or 2% of all deliveries it is nevertheless difficult to predict which patients will need transfusion, with only 2%-8% of those stratified as high risk ultimately requiring transfusion. Although obstetric hemorrhage safety bundles recommend risk stratification on admission to labor and delivery with selective type and screen for higher-risk individuals, for safety and simplicity’s sake, many labor and delivery units perform universal type and screen.

The authors cautioned that these results occurred in an academic tertiary care center with systems fine-tuned to deal with active hemorrhage and deliver timely transfusable blood. “At the moment we don’t have enough data to say whether the selective approach would be safe in hospitals with more limited blood bank capacity and access and fewer transfusion specialists in a setting optimized to respond to emergent needs, Dr. Benson said.

Katayoun F. M. Fomani, MD, a transfusion medicine specialist and medical director of blood bank and transfusion services at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New York, agreed. “This approach only works in a controlled environment such as in this study where eligible women were assessed antenatally at the same center, but it would not work at every institution,” she said in an interview. “In addition, all patients were assessed according to the California Collaborative guideline, which itself increases the safety level but is not followed everywhere.”

The obstetric division at her hospital in New York adheres to the universal type and screen. “We have patients coming in from outside whose antenatal testing was not done at our hospital,” she said. “For this selective approach to work you need a controlled population and the electronic resources and personnel to follow each patient carefully.”

The authors indicated no specific funding for this study and disclosed no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Fomani had no potential competing interests to declare.