Women's Health

Women who had a preterm delivery were at least 1.6 times as likely to develop hypertension over the next decade as those who had full-term deliveries, based on data from a national cohort study of more than 2 million women.

Pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia and other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy have been associated with chronic hypertension as well as with preterm delivery, but the independent role of preterm delivery in chronic hypertension risk remains unclear, Casey Crump, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote. “A better understanding of the long-term hypertension risks associated with preterm delivery is needed to improve risk stratification, clinical monitoring, and CVD [cardiovascular disease] prevention in women.”

In a study published in JAMA Cardiology, the researchers reviewed data from 2,195,989 women with 4,308,286 singleton deliveries in Sweden from Jan. 1, 1973, to Dec. 31, 2015. Women with preexisting hypertension before their first pregnancy were excluded. Pregnancy duration was based on maternal reports of the last menstrual period for patients in the 1970s, and based on ultrasound estimates in the 1980s and beyond. Pregnancy duration was divided into six groups in terms of completed weeks of gestation: extremely preterm (22-27 weeks), moderately preterm (28-33 weeks), late preterm (34-36 weeks), early term (37-38 weeks), full term (39-41 weeks), and post term (≥42 weeks). Full-term delivery was used as the reference, and the three preterm groups were combined for summaries of preterm delivery (less than 37 weeks).

Overall, women who delivered at less than 37 weeks’ gestation had a 1.6-fold increased risk of hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.67) within the next 10 years, compared with women who delivered full term after controlling for preeclampsia, other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and maternal factors.

When further stratified by pregnancy duration, the aHRs for extremely preterm, moderately preterm, late preterm, and early term, compared with full-term deliveries were 2.23, 1.85, 1.55, and 1.26, respectively, in the first decade after delivery. Each additional week of pregnancy was associated with a mean 7% reduction in hypertension risk (a HR, 0.93).

The increased hypertension risk following preterm delivery (less than 37 weeks) persisted at 10-19 years, 20-29 years, and 30-43 years, with aHRs of 1.40, 1.20, and 1.12, respectively. Early-term delivery at 37-38 weeks also carried an increased risk of long-term hypertension compared with full-term delivery, with aHRs of 1.12 and 1.06 at 20-29 years and 30-43 years, respectively.

“Cosibling analyses suggested that these findings were only partially explained by familial (genetic and/or early-life environmental) factors that are shared determinants of both preterm delivery and hypertension,” the researchers noted. The findings suggest that preterm delivery itself may contribute to or affect the pathophysiology that leads to cardiovascular disease, they added, hypothesizing that endothelial dysfunction caused by preterm delivery may cause functional impairments in the microvasculature.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of detailed records to verify hypertension and the use of data from a single country, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population, the use of highly complete prenatal and birth records to minimize selection bias, and the long-term follow-up.

The results are consistent with those from previous studies, and support the recognition of preterm delivery as a lifetime risk factor for hypertension, but future studies should focus on racial and ethnic subgroups already at increased risk for both preterm delivery and hypertension, they added.

“Additional follow-up will be needed to examine these associations in older adulthood when hypertension increasingly and disproportionately affects women,” they concluded.

Data highlight the need for patient and provider education

“This study furthers our knowledge regarding long-term complications associated with the frequent pregnancy complication of preterm delivery,” Stephen S. Crane, MD, an ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine specialist in private practice in Orlando, said in an interview. “Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death and often goes unrecognized in women. There are shared risk factors among women and men for developing CVD, the most common being hypertension. However, women have the unique risk factor of pregnancy and its attendant complications including preeclampsia, glucose intolerance, and preterm delivery. Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy often lead to indicated premature delivery, and are associated with development of chronic hypertension and subsequent CVD. However, prior data suggest that preterm delivery itself is a risk factor for developing chronic hypertension later in life.

“The current study, which evaluates one of the most complete population data sets with up to 43 years of follow-up, is the first to assess for familial determinants by cosibling analysis, and supports preterm delivery as an independent risk factor for the development of hypertension,” he said. The study results illustrate that this risk is longstanding, and that recurrent preterm birth further increases the risk of developing hypertension.

Dr. Crane said he was not surprised by the study findings, given that inflammatory processes have been linked to the development of hypertension and CVD. “Similarly, inflammatory processes have been implicated in the pathophysiology of preterm labor and inflammatory cytokines may also play a role in normal term labor. Therefore, it is not surprising that preterm delivery would be a marker for the risk of development of hypertension, as both may be responses to underlying inflammatory processes. Identification of these underlying inflammatory processes and methods for prevention will be critical if we are to decrease both the incidence of preterm birth and CVD.

“As prenatal care may be the only medical care women obtain, it is important to take this opportunity to educate patients regarding their long-term risks of developing hypertension and the need for long-term follow up. Interventions that may help reduce the risk for recurrent preterm birth and long-term risks for developing hypertension and CVD include weight loss, increased activity, and smoking cessation; the resources to achieve these goals need to be shared with patients,” he said.

“Knowledge deficits both on the part of the provider and patient may be a significant barrier to intervention that may be overcome with improved education,” said Dr. Crane. “Care providers need education regarding the long-term risks associated with a history of preterm delivery in order to better educate their patients regarding both prevention of recurrent preterm birth and the development of hypertension and CVD.” However, socioeconomic status, education level, and the inability to obtain further health care remain common barriers to intervention for many women.

“Additional research is needed to identify the causes of inflammatory processes leading to preterm delivery and risks for hypertension and CVD,” said Dr. Crane. “Only after the causes are identified can treatments be sought to successfully treat these conditions.”

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health; the Swedish Research Council; the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation; and an Avtal om Läkarutbildning och Forskning (Agreement on Medical Training and Research) (ALF) project grant from Region Skåne/Lund University. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Crane had any financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who had a preterm delivery were at least 1.6 times as likely to develop hypertension over the next decade as those who had full-term deliveries, based on data from a national cohort study of more than 2 million women.

Pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia and other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy have been associated with chronic hypertension as well as with preterm delivery, but the independent role of preterm delivery in chronic hypertension risk remains unclear, Casey Crump, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote. “A better understanding of the long-term hypertension risks associated with preterm delivery is needed to improve risk stratification, clinical monitoring, and CVD [cardiovascular disease] prevention in women.”

In a study published in JAMA Cardiology, the researchers reviewed data from 2,195,989 women with 4,308,286 singleton deliveries in Sweden from Jan. 1, 1973, to Dec. 31, 2015. Women with preexisting hypertension before their first pregnancy were excluded. Pregnancy duration was based on maternal reports of the last menstrual period for patients in the 1970s, and based on ultrasound estimates in the 1980s and beyond. Pregnancy duration was divided into six groups in terms of completed weeks of gestation: extremely preterm (22-27 weeks), moderately preterm (28-33 weeks), late preterm (34-36 weeks), early term (37-38 weeks), full term (39-41 weeks), and post term (≥42 weeks). Full-term delivery was used as the reference, and the three preterm groups were combined for summaries of preterm delivery (less than 37 weeks).

Overall, women who delivered at less than 37 weeks’ gestation had a 1.6-fold increased risk of hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.67) within the next 10 years, compared with women who delivered full term after controlling for preeclampsia, other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and maternal factors.

When further stratified by pregnancy duration, the aHRs for extremely preterm, moderately preterm, late preterm, and early term, compared with full-term deliveries were 2.23, 1.85, 1.55, and 1.26, respectively, in the first decade after delivery. Each additional week of pregnancy was associated with a mean 7% reduction in hypertension risk (a HR, 0.93).

The increased hypertension risk following preterm delivery (less than 37 weeks) persisted at 10-19 years, 20-29 years, and 30-43 years, with aHRs of 1.40, 1.20, and 1.12, respectively. Early-term delivery at 37-38 weeks also carried an increased risk of long-term hypertension compared with full-term delivery, with aHRs of 1.12 and 1.06 at 20-29 years and 30-43 years, respectively.

“Cosibling analyses suggested that these findings were only partially explained by familial (genetic and/or early-life environmental) factors that are shared determinants of both preterm delivery and hypertension,” the researchers noted. The findings suggest that preterm delivery itself may contribute to or affect the pathophysiology that leads to cardiovascular disease, they added, hypothesizing that endothelial dysfunction caused by preterm delivery may cause functional impairments in the microvasculature.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of detailed records to verify hypertension and the use of data from a single country, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population, the use of highly complete prenatal and birth records to minimize selection bias, and the long-term follow-up.

The results are consistent with those from previous studies, and support the recognition of preterm delivery as a lifetime risk factor for hypertension, but future studies should focus on racial and ethnic subgroups already at increased risk for both preterm delivery and hypertension, they added.

“Additional follow-up will be needed to examine these associations in older adulthood when hypertension increasingly and disproportionately affects women,” they concluded.

Data highlight the need for patient and provider education

“This study furthers our knowledge regarding long-term complications associated with the frequent pregnancy complication of preterm delivery,” Stephen S. Crane, MD, an ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine specialist in private practice in Orlando, said in an interview. “Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death and often goes unrecognized in women. There are shared risk factors among women and men for developing CVD, the most common being hypertension. However, women have the unique risk factor of pregnancy and its attendant complications including preeclampsia, glucose intolerance, and preterm delivery. Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy often lead to indicated premature delivery, and are associated with development of chronic hypertension and subsequent CVD. However, prior data suggest that preterm delivery itself is a risk factor for developing chronic hypertension later in life.

“The current study, which evaluates one of the most complete population data sets with up to 43 years of follow-up, is the first to assess for familial determinants by cosibling analysis, and supports preterm delivery as an independent risk factor for the development of hypertension,” he said. The study results illustrate that this risk is longstanding, and that recurrent preterm birth further increases the risk of developing hypertension.

Dr. Crane said he was not surprised by the study findings, given that inflammatory processes have been linked to the development of hypertension and CVD. “Similarly, inflammatory processes have been implicated in the pathophysiology of preterm labor and inflammatory cytokines may also play a role in normal term labor. Therefore, it is not surprising that preterm delivery would be a marker for the risk of development of hypertension, as both may be responses to underlying inflammatory processes. Identification of these underlying inflammatory processes and methods for prevention will be critical if we are to decrease both the incidence of preterm birth and CVD.

“As prenatal care may be the only medical care women obtain, it is important to take this opportunity to educate patients regarding their long-term risks of developing hypertension and the need for long-term follow up. Interventions that may help reduce the risk for recurrent preterm birth and long-term risks for developing hypertension and CVD include weight loss, increased activity, and smoking cessation; the resources to achieve these goals need to be shared with patients,” he said.

“Knowledge deficits both on the part of the provider and patient may be a significant barrier to intervention that may be overcome with improved education,” said Dr. Crane. “Care providers need education regarding the long-term risks associated with a history of preterm delivery in order to better educate their patients regarding both prevention of recurrent preterm birth and the development of hypertension and CVD.” However, socioeconomic status, education level, and the inability to obtain further health care remain common barriers to intervention for many women.

“Additional research is needed to identify the causes of inflammatory processes leading to preterm delivery and risks for hypertension and CVD,” said Dr. Crane. “Only after the causes are identified can treatments be sought to successfully treat these conditions.”

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health; the Swedish Research Council; the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation; and an Avtal om Läkarutbildning och Forskning (Agreement on Medical Training and Research) (ALF) project grant from Region Skåne/Lund University. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Crane had any financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who had a preterm delivery were at least 1.6 times as likely to develop hypertension over the next decade as those who had full-term deliveries, based on data from a national cohort study of more than 2 million women.

Pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia and other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy have been associated with chronic hypertension as well as with preterm delivery, but the independent role of preterm delivery in chronic hypertension risk remains unclear, Casey Crump, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote. “A better understanding of the long-term hypertension risks associated with preterm delivery is needed to improve risk stratification, clinical monitoring, and CVD [cardiovascular disease] prevention in women.”

In a study published in JAMA Cardiology, the researchers reviewed data from 2,195,989 women with 4,308,286 singleton deliveries in Sweden from Jan. 1, 1973, to Dec. 31, 2015. Women with preexisting hypertension before their first pregnancy were excluded. Pregnancy duration was based on maternal reports of the last menstrual period for patients in the 1970s, and based on ultrasound estimates in the 1980s and beyond. Pregnancy duration was divided into six groups in terms of completed weeks of gestation: extremely preterm (22-27 weeks), moderately preterm (28-33 weeks), late preterm (34-36 weeks), early term (37-38 weeks), full term (39-41 weeks), and post term (≥42 weeks). Full-term delivery was used as the reference, and the three preterm groups were combined for summaries of preterm delivery (less than 37 weeks).

Overall, women who delivered at less than 37 weeks’ gestation had a 1.6-fold increased risk of hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.67) within the next 10 years, compared with women who delivered full term after controlling for preeclampsia, other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and maternal factors.

When further stratified by pregnancy duration, the aHRs for extremely preterm, moderately preterm, late preterm, and early term, compared with full-term deliveries were 2.23, 1.85, 1.55, and 1.26, respectively, in the first decade after delivery. Each additional week of pregnancy was associated with a mean 7% reduction in hypertension risk (a HR, 0.93).

The increased hypertension risk following preterm delivery (less than 37 weeks) persisted at 10-19 years, 20-29 years, and 30-43 years, with aHRs of 1.40, 1.20, and 1.12, respectively. Early-term delivery at 37-38 weeks also carried an increased risk of long-term hypertension compared with full-term delivery, with aHRs of 1.12 and 1.06 at 20-29 years and 30-43 years, respectively.

“Cosibling analyses suggested that these findings were only partially explained by familial (genetic and/or early-life environmental) factors that are shared determinants of both preterm delivery and hypertension,” the researchers noted. The findings suggest that preterm delivery itself may contribute to or affect the pathophysiology that leads to cardiovascular disease, they added, hypothesizing that endothelial dysfunction caused by preterm delivery may cause functional impairments in the microvasculature.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of detailed records to verify hypertension and the use of data from a single country, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population, the use of highly complete prenatal and birth records to minimize selection bias, and the long-term follow-up.

The results are consistent with those from previous studies, and support the recognition of preterm delivery as a lifetime risk factor for hypertension, but future studies should focus on racial and ethnic subgroups already at increased risk for both preterm delivery and hypertension, they added.

“Additional follow-up will be needed to examine these associations in older adulthood when hypertension increasingly and disproportionately affects women,” they concluded.

Data highlight the need for patient and provider education

“This study furthers our knowledge regarding long-term complications associated with the frequent pregnancy complication of preterm delivery,” Stephen S. Crane, MD, an ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine specialist in private practice in Orlando, said in an interview. “Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death and often goes unrecognized in women. There are shared risk factors among women and men for developing CVD, the most common being hypertension. However, women have the unique risk factor of pregnancy and its attendant complications including preeclampsia, glucose intolerance, and preterm delivery. Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy often lead to indicated premature delivery, and are associated with development of chronic hypertension and subsequent CVD. However, prior data suggest that preterm delivery itself is a risk factor for developing chronic hypertension later in life.

“The current study, which evaluates one of the most complete population data sets with up to 43 years of follow-up, is the first to assess for familial determinants by cosibling analysis, and supports preterm delivery as an independent risk factor for the development of hypertension,” he said. The study results illustrate that this risk is longstanding, and that recurrent preterm birth further increases the risk of developing hypertension.

Dr. Crane said he was not surprised by the study findings, given that inflammatory processes have been linked to the development of hypertension and CVD. “Similarly, inflammatory processes have been implicated in the pathophysiology of preterm labor and inflammatory cytokines may also play a role in normal term labor. Therefore, it is not surprising that preterm delivery would be a marker for the risk of development of hypertension, as both may be responses to underlying inflammatory processes. Identification of these underlying inflammatory processes and methods for prevention will be critical if we are to decrease both the incidence of preterm birth and CVD.

“As prenatal care may be the only medical care women obtain, it is important to take this opportunity to educate patients regarding their long-term risks of developing hypertension and the need for long-term follow up. Interventions that may help reduce the risk for recurrent preterm birth and long-term risks for developing hypertension and CVD include weight loss, increased activity, and smoking cessation; the resources to achieve these goals need to be shared with patients,” he said.

“Knowledge deficits both on the part of the provider and patient may be a significant barrier to intervention that may be overcome with improved education,” said Dr. Crane. “Care providers need education regarding the long-term risks associated with a history of preterm delivery in order to better educate their patients regarding both prevention of recurrent preterm birth and the development of hypertension and CVD.” However, socioeconomic status, education level, and the inability to obtain further health care remain common barriers to intervention for many women.

“Additional research is needed to identify the causes of inflammatory processes leading to preterm delivery and risks for hypertension and CVD,” said Dr. Crane. “Only after the causes are identified can treatments be sought to successfully treat these conditions.”

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health; the Swedish Research Council; the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation; and an Avtal om Läkarutbildning och Forskning (Agreement on Medical Training and Research) (ALF) project grant from Region Skåne/Lund University. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Crane had any financial conflicts to disclose.

FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY

Cancer centers with a high use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer show similar improvements in median overall survival and larger declines in short-term mortality than in centers with low use of this treatment. This is according to a study published in JAMA Oncology, suggesting that neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be a suitable first-line treatment approach for many patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

“There is considerable variation in practice. Some centers administer neoadjuvant chemotherapy to 75% of patients with advanced ovarian cancers, others use the approach very infrequently,” said Alexander Melamed, MD, MPH, of Columbia University, New York.

“I hope that those clinicians who have been worried about the negative impacts of too frequent administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be reassured by this study and may come to use this good treatment more often.”

Research has shown that, compared with primary cytoreductive surgery, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has similar long-term survival and improved perioperative outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer. While the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has increased, many experts continue to recommend upfront surgery as the preferred treatment for these patients. 

“In part, these recommendations are based on flawed interpretations of real-world data. Specifically, many observational studies have concluded that upfront surgery results in better survival than neoadjuvant chemotherapy, based on study designs that ignored the fact that patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the real word are sicker and have more extensive cancer than those who receive upfront surgery,” Dr. Melamed said.

In this difference-in-differences comparative effectiveness analysis, researchers asked if the difference in adoption of neoadjuvant chemotherapy by U.S. cancer centers for advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer was associated with differences in median overall survival and 1-year all-cause mortality.

“By assessing how this divergence in practice impacted patient outcomes we were able to infer how frequent use of neoadjuvant impacts survival in ovarian cancer patients. This study design allowed us to sidestep the problem of selection bias that has plagued many other observational studies in this space,” Dr. Melamed explained.

This observational study included 39,299 women with stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer, diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 who were followed to the end of 2018, and treated at one of 664 cancer programs. Patients treated in programs that increased neoadjuvant chemotherapy administration had greater improvements in 1-year mortality (difference-in-differences, −2.1%; 95% confidence interval, −3.7 to −0.5) and equivalent gains in median overall survival  (difference-in-differences, 0.9 months; 95% CI, −1.9 to 3.7 months), compared with those treated in programs that used the treatment infrequently.

“For a long time, experts have suggested that the apparent discordance between randomized controlled trials and real-world studies that compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy to upfront surgery for ovarian cancer might mean that the randomized trials are not applicable to real-world practice. What is significant about our findings, is that, when more appropriate study methods are used to analyze the real-world data, the apparent contradiction between real-world and randomized studies is resolved.

“We found that, just as one would guess based on the findings of randomized trials, patients treated in the centers that increased the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not have any decrement in long-term survival, but that short-term mortality did improve more in these centers than in centers that administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy rarely,” she said.

Dr. Melamed said that the findings should “spur a reappraisal” of what clinicians consider the default treatment for women with stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer.

Taken together with randomized controlled trials, “the evidence may be at a point where it is now time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy as the default approach to patients with bulky carcinomatosis, and that primary surgery may be a reasonable alternative for a select group of healthy, young patients with low-volume metastasis.

“Other factors like the route of adjuvant chemotherapy may also need to be considered. However, I believe the belief that aggressive primary debulking is beneficial for most women with advanced ovarian cancer is outdated,” Dr. Melamed said.

No relevant conflicts of interest were reported for this research.

FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY

Cancer centers with a high use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer show similar improvements in median overall survival and larger declines in short-term mortality than in centers with low use of this treatment. This is according to a study published in JAMA Oncology, suggesting that neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be a suitable first-line treatment approach for many patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

“There is considerable variation in practice. Some centers administer neoadjuvant chemotherapy to 75% of patients with advanced ovarian cancers, others use the approach very infrequently,” said Alexander Melamed, MD, MPH, of Columbia University, New York.

“I hope that those clinicians who have been worried about the negative impacts of too frequent administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be reassured by this study and may come to use this good treatment more often.”

Research has shown that, compared with primary cytoreductive surgery, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has similar long-term survival and improved perioperative outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer. While the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has increased, many experts continue to recommend upfront surgery as the preferred treatment for these patients. 

“In part, these recommendations are based on flawed interpretations of real-world data. Specifically, many observational studies have concluded that upfront surgery results in better survival than neoadjuvant chemotherapy, based on study designs that ignored the fact that patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the real word are sicker and have more extensive cancer than those who receive upfront surgery,” Dr. Melamed said.

In this difference-in-differences comparative effectiveness analysis, researchers asked if the difference in adoption of neoadjuvant chemotherapy by U.S. cancer centers for advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer was associated with differences in median overall survival and 1-year all-cause mortality.

“By assessing how this divergence in practice impacted patient outcomes we were able to infer how frequent use of neoadjuvant impacts survival in ovarian cancer patients. This study design allowed us to sidestep the problem of selection bias that has plagued many other observational studies in this space,” Dr. Melamed explained.

This observational study included 39,299 women with stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer, diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 who were followed to the end of 2018, and treated at one of 664 cancer programs. Patients treated in programs that increased neoadjuvant chemotherapy administration had greater improvements in 1-year mortality (difference-in-differences, −2.1%; 95% confidence interval, −3.7 to −0.5) and equivalent gains in median overall survival  (difference-in-differences, 0.9 months; 95% CI, −1.9 to 3.7 months), compared with those treated in programs that used the treatment infrequently.

“For a long time, experts have suggested that the apparent discordance between randomized controlled trials and real-world studies that compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy to upfront surgery for ovarian cancer might mean that the randomized trials are not applicable to real-world practice. What is significant about our findings, is that, when more appropriate study methods are used to analyze the real-world data, the apparent contradiction between real-world and randomized studies is resolved.

“We found that, just as one would guess based on the findings of randomized trials, patients treated in the centers that increased the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not have any decrement in long-term survival, but that short-term mortality did improve more in these centers than in centers that administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy rarely,” she said.

Dr. Melamed said that the findings should “spur a reappraisal” of what clinicians consider the default treatment for women with stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer.

Taken together with randomized controlled trials, “the evidence may be at a point where it is now time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy as the default approach to patients with bulky carcinomatosis, and that primary surgery may be a reasonable alternative for a select group of healthy, young patients with low-volume metastasis.

“Other factors like the route of adjuvant chemotherapy may also need to be considered. However, I believe the belief that aggressive primary debulking is beneficial for most women with advanced ovarian cancer is outdated,” Dr. Melamed said.

No relevant conflicts of interest were reported for this research.

FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY

Cancer centers with a high use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer show similar improvements in median overall survival and larger declines in short-term mortality than in centers with low use of this treatment. This is according to a study published in JAMA Oncology, suggesting that neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be a suitable first-line treatment approach for many patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

“There is considerable variation in practice. Some centers administer neoadjuvant chemotherapy to 75% of patients with advanced ovarian cancers, others use the approach very infrequently,” said Alexander Melamed, MD, MPH, of Columbia University, New York.

“I hope that those clinicians who have been worried about the negative impacts of too frequent administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be reassured by this study and may come to use this good treatment more often.”

Research has shown that, compared with primary cytoreductive surgery, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has similar long-term survival and improved perioperative outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer. While the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has increased, many experts continue to recommend upfront surgery as the preferred treatment for these patients. 

“In part, these recommendations are based on flawed interpretations of real-world data. Specifically, many observational studies have concluded that upfront surgery results in better survival than neoadjuvant chemotherapy, based on study designs that ignored the fact that patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the real word are sicker and have more extensive cancer than those who receive upfront surgery,” Dr. Melamed said.

In this difference-in-differences comparative effectiveness analysis, researchers asked if the difference in adoption of neoadjuvant chemotherapy by U.S. cancer centers for advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer was associated with differences in median overall survival and 1-year all-cause mortality.

“By assessing how this divergence in practice impacted patient outcomes we were able to infer how frequent use of neoadjuvant impacts survival in ovarian cancer patients. This study design allowed us to sidestep the problem of selection bias that has plagued many other observational studies in this space,” Dr. Melamed explained.

This observational study included 39,299 women with stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer, diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 who were followed to the end of 2018, and treated at one of 664 cancer programs. Patients treated in programs that increased neoadjuvant chemotherapy administration had greater improvements in 1-year mortality (difference-in-differences, −2.1%; 95% confidence interval, −3.7 to −0.5) and equivalent gains in median overall survival  (difference-in-differences, 0.9 months; 95% CI, −1.9 to 3.7 months), compared with those treated in programs that used the treatment infrequently.

“For a long time, experts have suggested that the apparent discordance between randomized controlled trials and real-world studies that compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy to upfront surgery for ovarian cancer might mean that the randomized trials are not applicable to real-world practice. What is significant about our findings, is that, when more appropriate study methods are used to analyze the real-world data, the apparent contradiction between real-world and randomized studies is resolved.

“We found that, just as one would guess based on the findings of randomized trials, patients treated in the centers that increased the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not have any decrement in long-term survival, but that short-term mortality did improve more in these centers than in centers that administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy rarely,” she said.

Dr. Melamed said that the findings should “spur a reappraisal” of what clinicians consider the default treatment for women with stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer.

Taken together with randomized controlled trials, “the evidence may be at a point where it is now time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy as the default approach to patients with bulky carcinomatosis, and that primary surgery may be a reasonable alternative for a select group of healthy, young patients with low-volume metastasis.

“Other factors like the route of adjuvant chemotherapy may also need to be considered. However, I believe the belief that aggressive primary debulking is beneficial for most women with advanced ovarian cancer is outdated,” Dr. Melamed said.

No relevant conflicts of interest were reported for this research.

Women with systemic lupus erythematous (SLE) who are at risk for preeclampsia may benefit from timely treatment with low-dose aspirin and perhaps hydroxychloroquine, according to German researchers.

©American Heart Association

In a prospective, real-world study of 190 pregnancies in 148 women (average age, 30 years), the use of low-dose aspirin starting around the 16th week of gestation was associated with a lower risk for preeclampsia than was no aspirin use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.21; P < .05).

The use of hydroxychloroquine starting in the first trimester had a “moderating effect,” said Isabell Haase, MD, a senior clinician scientist in the department of rheumatology at Hiller-Research Unit, Düsseldorf, Germany. Although this was not a statistically significant effect (aOR, 0.47; P = .21), the association strengthened if only high-risk pregnancies were considered (aOR, 0.28; P = .075).

“I think this once more shows us that counseling and risk assessment in our lupus patients is very important to find out those with the highest risk and treat them as good as possible,” Dr. Haase said at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Preeclampsia and lupus

“Women with SLE face a high risk of preeclampsia because of their autoimmune disease,” Dr. Haase explained. “This [risk] can be further increased if a woman carries additional risk factors, like hypertension or lupus nephritis.”

Low-dose aspirin is known to protect against the development of preeclampsia in women without autoimmune disease if started before the 16th gestational week of pregnancy, Dr. Haase added. That is why it’s recommended by both the American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

“For hydroxychloroquine, we only have some small studies and its mechanism of action that lead us to the idea that it could also have a beneficial effect on preeclampsia in lupus patients,” she said.
 

Study design and results

The aim of the study was to see in a real-world cohort whether there was any beneficial effect of either aspirin or hydroxychloroquine regarding the development of preeclampsia.

The researchers used prospectively collected data from pregnancies seen at an outpatient pregnancy clinic during 1995-2019. They used multiple logistic regression to determine whether there was any effect of four treatments on the development of preeclampsia: aspirin (n = 39 patients) or hydroxychloroquine (n = 39) alone, in combination (n = 43), or neither drug (n = 69).

Overall, 56% of the women had significant risk factors for preeclampsia, including a prior history, multifetal gestation, chronic hypertension, lupus nephritis, or antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). A further 28% had moderate risk factors, including not having had children, a body mass index >30 kg/m², and being older than 35 years.

The overall rate of preeclampsia in the study population was 13.2%, “which is in line with other studies in lupus pregnancies,” Dr. Haase said. Rates in each of the four treatment groups were 15.4% with aspirin alone, 7.7% with hydroxychloroquine alone, 14% with both drugs, and 14.5% with neither.

The odds of developing preeclampsia were lower with both aspirin and hydroxychloroquine. Factors that raised the odds were high disease activity in the first trimester (aOR, 4.55), a BMI of >30 kg/m² (aOR, 6.14), having high-risk aPL or antiphospholipid syndrome (aOR, 8.02), and a history of preeclampsia (aOR, 9.78).

Only high disease activity in the first trimester and BMI >30 kg/m² remained independent predictors of preeclampsia when the researchers considered only high-risk pregnancies (aOR, 7.74 for high disease activity in first trimester and 10.04 for a high BMI).

The results are “really impressive,” said Angela Tincani, MD, senior consultant at the Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology Unit of ASST–Spedali Civili di Brescia, in Italy.

Dr. Tincani observed that the study had covered a “large number of years” (1995-2020).

“I think that our attitude in looking after lupus patients [changed] during this time,” she said.

“As an example, I think that we probably use less corticosteroids now than in the 90s,” she said.

When asked whether changes in practices have influenced the findings, she acknowledged, “You can see that the prescription of the different medications has changed a lot. We also thought that we have to take into account the years as a confounder, but we haven’t statistically analyzed that, but it’s definitely something that we are going to do next.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Haase has received travel fees from AbbVie, Celgene, Chugai, Janssen-Cilag, Eli Lilly, and Medac. Dr. Tincani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with systemic lupus erythematous (SLE) who are at risk for preeclampsia may benefit from timely treatment with low-dose aspirin and perhaps hydroxychloroquine, according to German researchers.

©American Heart Association

In a prospective, real-world study of 190 pregnancies in 148 women (average age, 30 years), the use of low-dose aspirin starting around the 16th week of gestation was associated with a lower risk for preeclampsia than was no aspirin use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.21; P < .05).

The use of hydroxychloroquine starting in the first trimester had a “moderating effect,” said Isabell Haase, MD, a senior clinician scientist in the department of rheumatology at Hiller-Research Unit, Düsseldorf, Germany. Although this was not a statistically significant effect (aOR, 0.47; P = .21), the association strengthened if only high-risk pregnancies were considered (aOR, 0.28; P = .075).

“I think this once more shows us that counseling and risk assessment in our lupus patients is very important to find out those with the highest risk and treat them as good as possible,” Dr. Haase said at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Preeclampsia and lupus

“Women with SLE face a high risk of preeclampsia because of their autoimmune disease,” Dr. Haase explained. “This [risk] can be further increased if a woman carries additional risk factors, like hypertension or lupus nephritis.”

Low-dose aspirin is known to protect against the development of preeclampsia in women without autoimmune disease if started before the 16th gestational week of pregnancy, Dr. Haase added. That is why it’s recommended by both the American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

“For hydroxychloroquine, we only have some small studies and its mechanism of action that lead us to the idea that it could also have a beneficial effect on preeclampsia in lupus patients,” she said.
 

Study design and results

The aim of the study was to see in a real-world cohort whether there was any beneficial effect of either aspirin or hydroxychloroquine regarding the development of preeclampsia.

The researchers used prospectively collected data from pregnancies seen at an outpatient pregnancy clinic during 1995-2019. They used multiple logistic regression to determine whether there was any effect of four treatments on the development of preeclampsia: aspirin (n = 39 patients) or hydroxychloroquine (n = 39) alone, in combination (n = 43), or neither drug (n = 69).

Overall, 56% of the women had significant risk factors for preeclampsia, including a prior history, multifetal gestation, chronic hypertension, lupus nephritis, or antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). A further 28% had moderate risk factors, including not having had children, a body mass index >30 kg/m², and being older than 35 years.

The overall rate of preeclampsia in the study population was 13.2%, “which is in line with other studies in lupus pregnancies,” Dr. Haase said. Rates in each of the four treatment groups were 15.4% with aspirin alone, 7.7% with hydroxychloroquine alone, 14% with both drugs, and 14.5% with neither.

The odds of developing preeclampsia were lower with both aspirin and hydroxychloroquine. Factors that raised the odds were high disease activity in the first trimester (aOR, 4.55), a BMI of >30 kg/m² (aOR, 6.14), having high-risk aPL or antiphospholipid syndrome (aOR, 8.02), and a history of preeclampsia (aOR, 9.78).

Only high disease activity in the first trimester and BMI >30 kg/m² remained independent predictors of preeclampsia when the researchers considered only high-risk pregnancies (aOR, 7.74 for high disease activity in first trimester and 10.04 for a high BMI).

The results are “really impressive,” said Angela Tincani, MD, senior consultant at the Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology Unit of ASST–Spedali Civili di Brescia, in Italy.

Dr. Tincani observed that the study had covered a “large number of years” (1995-2020).

“I think that our attitude in looking after lupus patients [changed] during this time,” she said.

“As an example, I think that we probably use less corticosteroids now than in the 90s,” she said.

When asked whether changes in practices have influenced the findings, she acknowledged, “You can see that the prescription of the different medications has changed a lot. We also thought that we have to take into account the years as a confounder, but we haven’t statistically analyzed that, but it’s definitely something that we are going to do next.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Haase has received travel fees from AbbVie, Celgene, Chugai, Janssen-Cilag, Eli Lilly, and Medac. Dr. Tincani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with systemic lupus erythematous (SLE) who are at risk for preeclampsia may benefit from timely treatment with low-dose aspirin and perhaps hydroxychloroquine, according to German researchers.

©American Heart Association

In a prospective, real-world study of 190 pregnancies in 148 women (average age, 30 years), the use of low-dose aspirin starting around the 16th week of gestation was associated with a lower risk for preeclampsia than was no aspirin use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.21; P < .05).

The use of hydroxychloroquine starting in the first trimester had a “moderating effect,” said Isabell Haase, MD, a senior clinician scientist in the department of rheumatology at Hiller-Research Unit, Düsseldorf, Germany. Although this was not a statistically significant effect (aOR, 0.47; P = .21), the association strengthened if only high-risk pregnancies were considered (aOR, 0.28; P = .075).

“I think this once more shows us that counseling and risk assessment in our lupus patients is very important to find out those with the highest risk and treat them as good as possible,” Dr. Haase said at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Preeclampsia and lupus

“Women with SLE face a high risk of preeclampsia because of their autoimmune disease,” Dr. Haase explained. “This [risk] can be further increased if a woman carries additional risk factors, like hypertension or lupus nephritis.”

Low-dose aspirin is known to protect against the development of preeclampsia in women without autoimmune disease if started before the 16th gestational week of pregnancy, Dr. Haase added. That is why it’s recommended by both the American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

“For hydroxychloroquine, we only have some small studies and its mechanism of action that lead us to the idea that it could also have a beneficial effect on preeclampsia in lupus patients,” she said.
 

Study design and results

The aim of the study was to see in a real-world cohort whether there was any beneficial effect of either aspirin or hydroxychloroquine regarding the development of preeclampsia.

The researchers used prospectively collected data from pregnancies seen at an outpatient pregnancy clinic during 1995-2019. They used multiple logistic regression to determine whether there was any effect of four treatments on the development of preeclampsia: aspirin (n = 39 patients) or hydroxychloroquine (n = 39) alone, in combination (n = 43), or neither drug (n = 69).

Overall, 56% of the women had significant risk factors for preeclampsia, including a prior history, multifetal gestation, chronic hypertension, lupus nephritis, or antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). A further 28% had moderate risk factors, including not having had children, a body mass index >30 kg/m², and being older than 35 years.

The overall rate of preeclampsia in the study population was 13.2%, “which is in line with other studies in lupus pregnancies,” Dr. Haase said. Rates in each of the four treatment groups were 15.4% with aspirin alone, 7.7% with hydroxychloroquine alone, 14% with both drugs, and 14.5% with neither.

The odds of developing preeclampsia were lower with both aspirin and hydroxychloroquine. Factors that raised the odds were high disease activity in the first trimester (aOR, 4.55), a BMI of >30 kg/m² (aOR, 6.14), having high-risk aPL or antiphospholipid syndrome (aOR, 8.02), and a history of preeclampsia (aOR, 9.78).

Only high disease activity in the first trimester and BMI >30 kg/m² remained independent predictors of preeclampsia when the researchers considered only high-risk pregnancies (aOR, 7.74 for high disease activity in first trimester and 10.04 for a high BMI).

The results are “really impressive,” said Angela Tincani, MD, senior consultant at the Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology Unit of ASST–Spedali Civili di Brescia, in Italy.

Dr. Tincani observed that the study had covered a “large number of years” (1995-2020).

“I think that our attitude in looking after lupus patients [changed] during this time,” she said.

“As an example, I think that we probably use less corticosteroids now than in the 90s,” she said.

When asked whether changes in practices have influenced the findings, she acknowledged, “You can see that the prescription of the different medications has changed a lot. We also thought that we have to take into account the years as a confounder, but we haven’t statistically analyzed that, but it’s definitely something that we are going to do next.”

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Haase has received travel fees from AbbVie, Celgene, Chugai, Janssen-Cilag, Eli Lilly, and Medac. Dr. Tincani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For women with breast cancer who undergo mastectomy and opt for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), the use of a mesh device does not appear to offer any advantage over conventional techniques.

A European study involving 155 women found that the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) did not lead to fewer reoperations, nor was it superior in terms of health-related quality of life or patient-reported cosmetic outcomes.

“We feel that women considering implant-based reconstructions for breast cancer should be informed about the lack of evidence supporting its advantage,” said lead author Fredrik Lohmander MD, department of breast and endocrine surgery, section of breast urgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm.

It is difficult to say generally whether ADM should be used in IBBR, he noted. “We can only conclude from our trial that there is no hard evidence that ADM is beneficial when performing breast reconstructions with implants,” he said in an interview. “In selected patients, ADM might be indicated.”

The study was conducted in Sweden and the United Kingdom. “Mostly because of high costs, ADM in implant-based breast reconstructions in Sweden is not frequently used,” Dr. Lohmander said. “It is slightly more common in the U.K., but much more common in the U.S.A.”

Although biological meshes have received regulatory approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reconstructive purposes, ADM has not been approved for use in breast reconstruction surgery, and its use in this setting is off label.

The study was published online October 1 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Any advantage to using mesh device?

Previous studies of ADMs suggested that the mesh device conferred several benefits, including superior cosmetic results, less need for tissue expanders, fewer elective reoperations, and less capsular contracture. The use of a mesh device also enlarges the subpectoral pocket, which allows for larger fixed-volume implants, the authors note.

However, these suggested advantages have not been universally accepted, and the authors note that there have been reports of associated harm, such as higher rates of infection and implant loss.

The new study included 135 women from five centers in Sweden and the United Kingdom. The patients had breast cancer and had planned to undergo mastectomy and immediate IBBR between 2014 and May 2017.

The primary endpoint was the number of repeat surgeries at 2 years.

At the 2-year follow-up, 31 patients (48%) in the ADM group had undergone at least one reoperation on the ipsilateral side, vs 35 (54%) in the control group (P = .54). Results were similar for the contralateral side: 34 (53%) vs 31 (48%).

Two patients in the ADM group and three patients in the control group underwent a risk-reducing mastectomy on the contralateral side. These five surgeries were included in the final analysis.

For nine patients (14%) in the ADM arm, the implant was removed. Four of the removals took place within 6 months after early surgical complications. In the control group, seven patients (11%) underwent implant removal; four were removed within 6 months, owing to early surgical complications.

The secondary endpoint was postoperative health-related quality of life, including perception of body image and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome. There were no significant differences between the two groups.

Some questions remain

Approached for comment on the study, Sameer A. Patel, MD, FACS, chief of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the practice of using AMD for breast reconstruction is quite common in the United States, so these data are informative and add to the current understanding of the value of ADM in breast reconstruction. “The study hypothesized that the use of ADM would reduce the number of reoperations within the first 24 months, which it did not,” he said. “This is despite the fact that the ADM group had a significantly higher number of direct-to-implant reconstructions.”

Importantly, the study showed that patient-reported outcomes, as opposed to surgeon’s evaluation of outcomes, were also not different for the most part between the two groups, Dr. Patel pointed out. “The only exception of small favorable advantage in the ADM group was for fitting bras,” he said.

However, there were limitations to the study’s endpoint. “I would add that there are some purported advantages of using ADM, such as reduction in postoperative pain and reduction in length of hospital stay, which are not evaluated by this study,” Patel explained. “Also, I am not certain that they can conclude from this study that capsular contracture is not reduced, because it is not designed to evaluate that.”

But the biggest limitation is one that study authors point out in their discussion at the end of the article, he added. “The use of prepectoral reconstruction is rapidly replacing the dual plane reconstruction that this paper used in the ADM group,” Dr. Patel said. “The role of ADM in prepectoral reconstruction is somewhat different than in the dual plane reconstruction, and so these results may not necessarily be extrapolated to prepectoral reconstruction.”

The study was funded with grants from the Swedish Breast Cancer Association and Stockholm City Council. The trial was initiated by Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet. Acelity (an Allergan company) supplied the study with acellular dermal matrix meshes. Dr. Lohmander and Dr. Patel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For women with breast cancer who undergo mastectomy and opt for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), the use of a mesh device does not appear to offer any advantage over conventional techniques.

A European study involving 155 women found that the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) did not lead to fewer reoperations, nor was it superior in terms of health-related quality of life or patient-reported cosmetic outcomes.

“We feel that women considering implant-based reconstructions for breast cancer should be informed about the lack of evidence supporting its advantage,” said lead author Fredrik Lohmander MD, department of breast and endocrine surgery, section of breast urgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm.

It is difficult to say generally whether ADM should be used in IBBR, he noted. “We can only conclude from our trial that there is no hard evidence that ADM is beneficial when performing breast reconstructions with implants,” he said in an interview. “In selected patients, ADM might be indicated.”

The study was conducted in Sweden and the United Kingdom. “Mostly because of high costs, ADM in implant-based breast reconstructions in Sweden is not frequently used,” Dr. Lohmander said. “It is slightly more common in the U.K., but much more common in the U.S.A.”

Although biological meshes have received regulatory approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reconstructive purposes, ADM has not been approved for use in breast reconstruction surgery, and its use in this setting is off label.

The study was published online October 1 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Any advantage to using mesh device?

Previous studies of ADMs suggested that the mesh device conferred several benefits, including superior cosmetic results, less need for tissue expanders, fewer elective reoperations, and less capsular contracture. The use of a mesh device also enlarges the subpectoral pocket, which allows for larger fixed-volume implants, the authors note.

However, these suggested advantages have not been universally accepted, and the authors note that there have been reports of associated harm, such as higher rates of infection and implant loss.

The new study included 135 women from five centers in Sweden and the United Kingdom. The patients had breast cancer and had planned to undergo mastectomy and immediate IBBR between 2014 and May 2017.

The primary endpoint was the number of repeat surgeries at 2 years.

At the 2-year follow-up, 31 patients (48%) in the ADM group had undergone at least one reoperation on the ipsilateral side, vs 35 (54%) in the control group (P = .54). Results were similar for the contralateral side: 34 (53%) vs 31 (48%).

Two patients in the ADM group and three patients in the control group underwent a risk-reducing mastectomy on the contralateral side. These five surgeries were included in the final analysis.

For nine patients (14%) in the ADM arm, the implant was removed. Four of the removals took place within 6 months after early surgical complications. In the control group, seven patients (11%) underwent implant removal; four were removed within 6 months, owing to early surgical complications.

The secondary endpoint was postoperative health-related quality of life, including perception of body image and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome. There were no significant differences between the two groups.

Some questions remain

Approached for comment on the study, Sameer A. Patel, MD, FACS, chief of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the practice of using AMD for breast reconstruction is quite common in the United States, so these data are informative and add to the current understanding of the value of ADM in breast reconstruction. “The study hypothesized that the use of ADM would reduce the number of reoperations within the first 24 months, which it did not,” he said. “This is despite the fact that the ADM group had a significantly higher number of direct-to-implant reconstructions.”

Importantly, the study showed that patient-reported outcomes, as opposed to surgeon’s evaluation of outcomes, were also not different for the most part between the two groups, Dr. Patel pointed out. “The only exception of small favorable advantage in the ADM group was for fitting bras,” he said.

However, there were limitations to the study’s endpoint. “I would add that there are some purported advantages of using ADM, such as reduction in postoperative pain and reduction in length of hospital stay, which are not evaluated by this study,” Patel explained. “Also, I am not certain that they can conclude from this study that capsular contracture is not reduced, because it is not designed to evaluate that.”

But the biggest limitation is one that study authors point out in their discussion at the end of the article, he added. “The use of prepectoral reconstruction is rapidly replacing the dual plane reconstruction that this paper used in the ADM group,” Dr. Patel said. “The role of ADM in prepectoral reconstruction is somewhat different than in the dual plane reconstruction, and so these results may not necessarily be extrapolated to prepectoral reconstruction.”

The study was funded with grants from the Swedish Breast Cancer Association and Stockholm City Council. The trial was initiated by Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet. Acelity (an Allergan company) supplied the study with acellular dermal matrix meshes. Dr. Lohmander and Dr. Patel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For women with breast cancer who undergo mastectomy and opt for implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), the use of a mesh device does not appear to offer any advantage over conventional techniques.

A European study involving 155 women found that the use of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) did not lead to fewer reoperations, nor was it superior in terms of health-related quality of life or patient-reported cosmetic outcomes.

“We feel that women considering implant-based reconstructions for breast cancer should be informed about the lack of evidence supporting its advantage,” said lead author Fredrik Lohmander MD, department of breast and endocrine surgery, section of breast urgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm.

It is difficult to say generally whether ADM should be used in IBBR, he noted. “We can only conclude from our trial that there is no hard evidence that ADM is beneficial when performing breast reconstructions with implants,” he said in an interview. “In selected patients, ADM might be indicated.”

The study was conducted in Sweden and the United Kingdom. “Mostly because of high costs, ADM in implant-based breast reconstructions in Sweden is not frequently used,” Dr. Lohmander said. “It is slightly more common in the U.K., but much more common in the U.S.A.”

Although biological meshes have received regulatory approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reconstructive purposes, ADM has not been approved for use in breast reconstruction surgery, and its use in this setting is off label.

The study was published online October 1 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Any advantage to using mesh device?

Previous studies of ADMs suggested that the mesh device conferred several benefits, including superior cosmetic results, less need for tissue expanders, fewer elective reoperations, and less capsular contracture. The use of a mesh device also enlarges the subpectoral pocket, which allows for larger fixed-volume implants, the authors note.

However, these suggested advantages have not been universally accepted, and the authors note that there have been reports of associated harm, such as higher rates of infection and implant loss.

The new study included 135 women from five centers in Sweden and the United Kingdom. The patients had breast cancer and had planned to undergo mastectomy and immediate IBBR between 2014 and May 2017.

The primary endpoint was the number of repeat surgeries at 2 years.

At the 2-year follow-up, 31 patients (48%) in the ADM group had undergone at least one reoperation on the ipsilateral side, vs 35 (54%) in the control group (P = .54). Results were similar for the contralateral side: 34 (53%) vs 31 (48%).

Two patients in the ADM group and three patients in the control group underwent a risk-reducing mastectomy on the contralateral side. These five surgeries were included in the final analysis.

For nine patients (14%) in the ADM arm, the implant was removed. Four of the removals took place within 6 months after early surgical complications. In the control group, seven patients (11%) underwent implant removal; four were removed within 6 months, owing to early surgical complications.

The secondary endpoint was postoperative health-related quality of life, including perception of body image and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome. There were no significant differences between the two groups.

Some questions remain

Approached for comment on the study, Sameer A. Patel, MD, FACS, chief of plastic and reconstructive surgery at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the practice of using AMD for breast reconstruction is quite common in the United States, so these data are informative and add to the current understanding of the value of ADM in breast reconstruction. “The study hypothesized that the use of ADM would reduce the number of reoperations within the first 24 months, which it did not,” he said. “This is despite the fact that the ADM group had a significantly higher number of direct-to-implant reconstructions.”

Importantly, the study showed that patient-reported outcomes, as opposed to surgeon’s evaluation of outcomes, were also not different for the most part between the two groups, Dr. Patel pointed out. “The only exception of small favorable advantage in the ADM group was for fitting bras,” he said.

However, there were limitations to the study’s endpoint. “I would add that there are some purported advantages of using ADM, such as reduction in postoperative pain and reduction in length of hospital stay, which are not evaluated by this study,” Patel explained. “Also, I am not certain that they can conclude from this study that capsular contracture is not reduced, because it is not designed to evaluate that.”

But the biggest limitation is one that study authors point out in their discussion at the end of the article, he added. “The use of prepectoral reconstruction is rapidly replacing the dual plane reconstruction that this paper used in the ADM group,” Dr. Patel said. “The role of ADM in prepectoral reconstruction is somewhat different than in the dual plane reconstruction, and so these results may not necessarily be extrapolated to prepectoral reconstruction.”

The study was funded with grants from the Swedish Breast Cancer Association and Stockholm City Council. The trial was initiated by Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet. Acelity (an Allergan company) supplied the study with acellular dermal matrix meshes. Dr. Lohmander and Dr. Patel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adverse event rates were similarly low overall for women delivering at home or at community birth centers, based on data from a retrospective study of more than 10,000 births.

Increasing numbers of women in the United States are choosing to give birth at home or in freestanding out-of-hospital birth centers, prompted by high patient satisfaction and low intervention, wrote Elizabeth Nethery, MSc, MSM, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues. Although data from other countries with well-integrated midwifery show no significant difference in outcomes between home or community births and hospital births, data in the United States are limited, and some studies have shown an increase in perinatal mortality for home births, the researchers said.

“ACOG identified elements for safe planned home birth: high degree of integration of midwives, education meeting International Confederation of Midwives standards, ready access to consultation and transfer, and ‘appropriate selection of candidates,’ all of which are present in Washington State,” the researchers wrote.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed outcomes for 10,609 births attended by members of a professional midwifery association in Washington State between Jan. 1, 2015, and June 30, 2020. Of these, 40.9% (4,344) were planned to take place at home and 59.1% (6,265) were planned to take place at birth centers. The births were attended by a total of 139 midwives. A majority (84%) of the women planning a home or community center birth were White non-Hispanic, and 64% were multiparous.

Overall, 86% of the women gave birth in the location of their choice. Intrapartum transfers to hospitals were significantly more likely for nulliparous women, compared with multiparous women (30.5% vs. 4.2%). However, the cesarean birth rates were not significantly different based on birth location (11% for nulliparous women vs. 1% for multiparous women overall), and maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar for home births and birth center births.

Approximately two-thirds (66%) of the women who transferred to a hospital had a vaginal birth, including 37% of nulliparous women and 20% of multiparous women.

Overall perinatal mortality after the onset of labor and within 7 days was 0.57 per 1,000 births, which was similar to rates seen in other high-income countries with established systems for community birth and midwifery, the researchers noted.

“This large study population of planned home and planned birth center births in a single state with well-integrated midwifery enabled our study to overcome previous limitations to studying planned community births in the United States,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several other factors, notably the inclusion only of members of the Midwives’ Association of Washington State, the researchers said. Although demographics of the women in the study were similar to those in other states, the results may not be generalizable to other states with different programs for training midwives or to a more diverse population; however, better integration of community midwives in the United States overall could lead to comparable outcomes in other states, the researchers concluded.

Birth location should be an informed decision

The current study takes on the controversial topic of safety differences between planned birth locations, wrote Julia C. Phillippi, PhD, CNM, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., in an accompanying editorial.

“Rates of community birth in the United States have increased by 85% since 2004, to more than 62,000 births in 2017, and thousands more individuals planned community births but needed transfer to hospital care,” she said. The interest in and use of home or community births may have increased in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic as families considered the perceived risks of being in a hospital, she noted.

“There is broad consensus among U.S. perinatal and neonatal health care leadership that informed choice should be a cornerstone of maternity care,” Dr. Phillippi emphasized. Although outcomes were favorable for most patients using community or home birth options in the current study, the selection criteria encouraged only low-risk women to plan home or community births, and they were not compared directly to outcomes for low-risk patients in planned hospital birth settings, she noted.

“Evidence-based information about systems-level and individual characteristics associated with safe, physiologic birth can be helpful in assisting individuals planning location of birth – in terms of selecting hospital birth or opting for community birth if key safety provisions are met,” said Dr. Phillippi. However, “For community birth to have favorable outcomes, systems need open channels for transfer when laboring individuals are no longer low risk or require interventions,” she added.

Larger, prospective studies and ongoing risk assessment is needed to support informed decision-making, said Dr. Phillippi. Publicizing safety considerations and developing transfer pathways can not only improve patient satisfaction, but also reduce preventable perinatal morbidity and mortality, she concluded.
 

Patient selection is key to successful community birth

The current study is important at this time because of the relatively limited evidence on outcomes with planned community births in the United States, said Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.

“Most information available is based on observational studies, as is the case with this study, and it is important to continue to add to growing literature,” she said.

Overall, Dr. Krishna said she was not surprised by the study findings. “In the well-selected, low-risk patient with a certified or licensed nurse-midwife, a low rate of adverse outcomes is to be expected,” she said.

“Strict criteria are necessary to guide selection of appropriate candidates for planned community birth to reduce the risk of adverse maternal and/or fetal outcomes,” Dr. Krishna added. “In the appropriately selected low-risk patient with a certified or licensed nurse-midwife, a favorable outcome is achievable. It is also important to have ready access to safe and timely transport to nearby hospitals,” she noted.

“Physicians should counsel patients contemplating a planned community birth that available data may not be generalizable to all birth settings in the United States or to all patients,” Dr. Krishna emphasized. “For example, this cohort is predominantly non-Hispanic White patients, which typically have lower rates of adverse perinatal events in comparison to other ethnicities,” she explained.

“More research is needed, and in particular research comparing planned community births with planned hospital births in the appropriately selected low-risk patient,” Dr. Krishna said.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Ms. Nethery disclosed support from a Canadian Vanier Graduate Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Phillippi had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Krishna had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Ob.Gyn News.

Adverse event rates were similarly low overall for women delivering at home or at community birth centers, based on data from a retrospective study of more than 10,000 births.

Increasing numbers of women in the United States are choosing to give birth at home or in freestanding out-of-hospital birth centers, prompted by high patient satisfaction and low intervention, wrote Elizabeth Nethery, MSc, MSM, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues. Although data from other countries with well-integrated midwifery show no significant difference in outcomes between home or community births and hospital births, data in the United States are limited, and some studies have shown an increase in perinatal mortality for home births, the researchers said.

“ACOG identified elements for safe planned home birth: high degree of integration of midwives, education meeting International Confederation of Midwives standards, ready access to consultation and transfer, and ‘appropriate selection of candidates,’ all of which are present in Washington State,” the researchers wrote.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed outcomes for 10,609 births attended by members of a professional midwifery association in Washington State between Jan. 1, 2015, and June 30, 2020. Of these, 40.9% (4,344) were planned to take place at home and 59.1% (6,265) were planned to take place at birth centers. The births were attended by a total of 139 midwives. A majority (84%) of the women planning a home or community center birth were White non-Hispanic, and 64% were multiparous.

Overall, 86% of the women gave birth in the location of their choice. Intrapartum transfers to hospitals were significantly more likely for nulliparous women, compared with multiparous women (30.5% vs. 4.2%). However, the cesarean birth rates were not significantly different based on birth location (11% for nulliparous women vs. 1% for multiparous women overall), and maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar for home births and birth center births.

Approximately two-thirds (66%) of the women who transferred to a hospital had a vaginal birth, including 37% of nulliparous women and 20% of multiparous women.

Overall perinatal mortality after the onset of labor and within 7 days was 0.57 per 1,000 births, which was similar to rates seen in other high-income countries with established systems for community birth and midwifery, the researchers noted.

“This large study population of planned home and planned birth center births in a single state with well-integrated midwifery enabled our study to overcome previous limitations to studying planned community births in the United States,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several other factors, notably the inclusion only of members of the Midwives’ Association of Washington State, the researchers said. Although demographics of the women in the study were similar to those in other states, the results may not be generalizable to other states with different programs for training midwives or to a more diverse population; however, better integration of community midwives in the United States overall could lead to comparable outcomes in other states, the researchers concluded.

Birth location should be an informed decision

The current study takes on the controversial topic of safety differences between planned birth locations, wrote Julia C. Phillippi, PhD, CNM, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., in an accompanying editorial.

“Rates of community birth in the United States have increased by 85% since 2004, to more than 62,000 births in 2017, and thousands more individuals planned community births but needed transfer to hospital care,” she said. The interest in and use of home or community births may have increased in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic as families considered the perceived risks of being in a hospital, she noted.

“There is broad consensus among U.S. perinatal and neonatal health care leadership that informed choice should be a cornerstone of maternity care,” Dr. Phillippi emphasized. Although outcomes were favorable for most patients using community or home birth options in the current study, the selection criteria encouraged only low-risk women to plan home or community births, and they were not compared directly to outcomes for low-risk patients in planned hospital birth settings, she noted.

“Evidence-based information about systems-level and individual characteristics associated with safe, physiologic birth can be helpful in assisting individuals planning location of birth – in terms of selecting hospital birth or opting for community birth if key safety provisions are met,” said Dr. Phillippi. However, “For community birth to have favorable outcomes, systems need open channels for transfer when laboring individuals are no longer low risk or require interventions,” she added.

Larger, prospective studies and ongoing risk assessment is needed to support informed decision-making, said Dr. Phillippi. Publicizing safety considerations and developing transfer pathways can not only improve patient satisfaction, but also reduce preventable perinatal morbidity and mortality, she concluded.
 

Patient selection is key to successful community birth

The current study is important at this time because of the relatively limited evidence on outcomes with planned community births in the United States, said Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.

“Most information available is based on observational studies, as is the case with this study, and it is important to continue to add to growing literature,” she said.

Overall, Dr. Krishna said she was not surprised by the study findings. “In the well-selected, low-risk patient with a certified or licensed nurse-midwife, a low rate of adverse outcomes is to be expected,” she said.

“Strict criteria are necessary to guide selection of appropriate candidates for planned community birth to reduce the risk of adverse maternal and/or fetal outcomes,” Dr. Krishna added. “In the appropriately selected low-risk patient with a certified or licensed nurse-midwife, a favorable outcome is achievable. It is also important to have ready access to safe and timely transport to nearby hospitals,” she noted.

“Physicians should counsel patients contemplating a planned community birth that available data may not be generalizable to all birth settings in the United States or to all patients,” Dr. Krishna emphasized. “For example, this cohort is predominantly non-Hispanic White patients, which typically have lower rates of adverse perinatal events in comparison to other ethnicities,” she explained.

“More research is needed, and in particular research comparing planned community births with planned hospital births in the appropriately selected low-risk patient,” Dr. Krishna said.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Ms. Nethery disclosed support from a Canadian Vanier Graduate Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Phillippi had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Krishna had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Ob.Gyn News.

Adverse event rates were similarly low overall for women delivering at home or at community birth centers, based on data from a retrospective study of more than 10,000 births.

Increasing numbers of women in the United States are choosing to give birth at home or in freestanding out-of-hospital birth centers, prompted by high patient satisfaction and low intervention, wrote Elizabeth Nethery, MSc, MSM, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues. Although data from other countries with well-integrated midwifery show no significant difference in outcomes between home or community births and hospital births, data in the United States are limited, and some studies have shown an increase in perinatal mortality for home births, the researchers said.

“ACOG identified elements for safe planned home birth: high degree of integration of midwives, education meeting International Confederation of Midwives standards, ready access to consultation and transfer, and ‘appropriate selection of candidates,’ all of which are present in Washington State,” the researchers wrote.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers reviewed outcomes for 10,609 births attended by members of a professional midwifery association in Washington State between Jan. 1, 2015, and June 30, 2020. Of these, 40.9% (4,344) were planned to take place at home and 59.1% (6,265) were planned to take place at birth centers. The births were attended by a total of 139 midwives. A majority (84%) of the women planning a home or community center birth were White non-Hispanic, and 64% were multiparous.

Overall, 86% of the women gave birth in the location of their choice. Intrapartum transfers to hospitals were significantly more likely for nulliparous women, compared with multiparous women (30.5% vs. 4.2%). However, the cesarean birth rates were not significantly different based on birth location (11% for nulliparous women vs. 1% for multiparous women overall), and maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar for home births and birth center births.

Approximately two-thirds (66%) of the women who transferred to a hospital had a vaginal birth, including 37% of nulliparous women and 20% of multiparous women.

Overall perinatal mortality after the onset of labor and within 7 days was 0.57 per 1,000 births, which was similar to rates seen in other high-income countries with established systems for community birth and midwifery, the researchers noted.

“This large study population of planned home and planned birth center births in a single state with well-integrated midwifery enabled our study to overcome previous limitations to studying planned community births in the United States,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several other factors, notably the inclusion only of members of the Midwives’ Association of Washington State, the researchers said. Although demographics of the women in the study were similar to those in other states, the results may not be generalizable to other states with different programs for training midwives or to a more diverse population; however, better integration of community midwives in the United States overall could lead to comparable outcomes in other states, the researchers concluded.

Birth location should be an informed decision

The current study takes on the controversial topic of safety differences between planned birth locations, wrote Julia C. Phillippi, PhD, CNM, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., in an accompanying editorial.

“Rates of community birth in the United States have increased by 85% since 2004, to more than 62,000 births in 2017, and thousands more individuals planned community births but needed transfer to hospital care,” she said. The interest in and use of home or community births may have increased in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic as families considered the perceived risks of being in a hospital, she noted.

“There is broad consensus among U.S. perinatal and neonatal health care leadership that informed choice should be a cornerstone of maternity care,” Dr. Phillippi emphasized. Although outcomes were favorable for most patients using community or home birth options in the current study, the selection criteria encouraged only low-risk women to plan home or community births, and they were not compared directly to outcomes for low-risk patients in planned hospital birth settings, she noted.

“Evidence-based information about systems-level and individual characteristics associated with safe, physiologic birth can be helpful in assisting individuals planning location of birth – in terms of selecting hospital birth or opting for community birth if key safety provisions are met,” said Dr. Phillippi. However, “For community birth to have favorable outcomes, systems need open channels for transfer when laboring individuals are no longer low risk or require interventions,” she added.

Larger, prospective studies and ongoing risk assessment is needed to support informed decision-making, said Dr. Phillippi. Publicizing safety considerations and developing transfer pathways can not only improve patient satisfaction, but also reduce preventable perinatal morbidity and mortality, she concluded.
 

Patient selection is key to successful community birth

The current study is important at this time because of the relatively limited evidence on outcomes with planned community births in the United States, said Iris Krishna, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, in an interview.

“Most information available is based on observational studies, as is the case with this study, and it is important to continue to add to growing literature,” she said.

Overall, Dr. Krishna said she was not surprised by the study findings. “In the well-selected, low-risk patient with a certified or licensed nurse-midwife, a low rate of adverse outcomes is to be expected,” she said.

“Strict criteria are necessary to guide selection of appropriate candidates for planned community birth to reduce the risk of adverse maternal and/or fetal outcomes,” Dr. Krishna added. “In the appropriately selected low-risk patient with a certified or licensed nurse-midwife, a favorable outcome is achievable. It is also important to have ready access to safe and timely transport to nearby hospitals,” she noted.

“Physicians should counsel patients contemplating a planned community birth that available data may not be generalizable to all birth settings in the United States or to all patients,” Dr. Krishna emphasized. “For example, this cohort is predominantly non-Hispanic White patients, which typically have lower rates of adverse perinatal events in comparison to other ethnicities,” she explained.

“More research is needed, and in particular research comparing planned community births with planned hospital births in the appropriately selected low-risk patient,” Dr. Krishna said.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Ms. Nethery disclosed support from a Canadian Vanier Graduate Scholarship. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Phillippi had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Krishna had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Ob.Gyn News.

Ready access to maternity services in rural areas is not a given, yet access to obstetric hospitals is associated with decreased rates of preterm birth and neonatal/perinatal mortality.

Little is known, however, about the availability of obstetric centers with respect to birth volume, geographic distribution among states, proximity of obstetric hospitals, and urban adjacency.

“This knowledge is fundamental to inform clinical and policy efforts to optimize perinatal regionalization, care delivery, and outcomes,” wrote Sara C. Handley, MD, MSCE, of the Roberts Center for Pediatric Research at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and colleagues, who undertook to fill that information gap in a study. It was published online Oct. 8 in JAMA Network Open.

Her group found birth volumes varied among obstetric hospitals, with many low-volume facilities located in rural, even isolated, areas, which suggests a need to ensure better access to perinatal care for women in these locations.

Using American Hospital Association data, the researchers examined the birth volumes and geographic distributions of 3,207 maternity hospitals from 2010 to 2018. In a cohort of 34,054,951 births, 56.8% occurred in high-volume obstetric facilities, and 37.4% in low-volume hospitals. Among the latter, 18.9% were isolated in location and not within 30 miles of any other obstetric hospital.

Most infants (19,327,487) were born in hospitals with more than 2,000 births per year, the study found, but a substantial 2,528,259, or 7.4%, were born in low-volume centers reporting 10 to 500 births annually.

“We were surprised by the number of low-volume hospitals and the number of births in low-volume hospitals,” Dr. Handley said in an interview. Many low-volume hospitals are in rural areas, which may require patients to drive long distances. These hospitals are at high risk of closure and such closures may further increase travel time.

Among low-volume hospitals, 23.9% were within the study proximity threshold of 30 miles of a hospital with more than 2,000 deliveries per year. “And when you’re in labor, even 30 miles is a long drive,” Dr. Handley said.

According to the authors, these findings highlight the need to balance care availability and sufficient patient volume by ensuring access and referral to high-quality perinatal care. They suggest perinatal care regionalization policies need review to improve maternal and infant outcomes.

But although the need is pressing, meeting it will not happen quickly, Dr. Handley said. “Change will require buy-in from multiple stakeholders and investment at many levels.”

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has previously raised the alarm about general health disparities among women in underserved rural communities.

Anne L. Banfield, MD, director of women’s health services at Davis Medical Center in the mountain town of Elkins, W.V., is one obstetrician/gynecologist who is all too familiar with the problem of shrinking perinatal facilities. “Closures have impacted services,” she said in an interview, noting that one hospital in her region closed its birthing unit because of financial considerations. “The next closest facility to ours is 20 miles to the west and more than 60 miles in any other direction,” she said. “And geography can create challenges. Because we’re located in the mountains, it can take 2 hours to get to our facility.”

The hope is that these findings will inform discussions on regionalization policy for perinatal care to improve maternal and infant outcomes and address concerns about isolated obstetric hospitals, the authors said.

Dr. Banfield emphasized that obstetric facilities should be made a priority even if they’re less profitable than other services and not a major contributor to the bottom line. But that will require rethinking reimbursement models to align with community needs. “Everyone has a mother – no one springs from a pod – but the fact is, we’re not paying enough for maternal health care,” she said.

A top priority, she noted, is attracting sufficient staff; not only doctors, but also nurses and midwives with the skill sets required for perinatal care, which differ from those of general surgery and outpatient services. “We have to make financial changes to make this care feasible,” Dr. Banfield said.

In similar recent research, a study published online in the October issue of Health Affairs, showed that with rural hospitals facing increased financial distress, they may merge with other hospitals/systems, potentially reducing service lines that are less profitable or that duplicate services offered by the acquiring institution. Among those often on the chopping block is perinatal care.

“Our analysis of rural hospital discharge data found that merged hospitals were more likely than independent hospitals to eliminate maternal, neonatal, and also surgical care,” lead author Lan Liang, PhD, senior economist at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) in Rockville, Md., said in an interview. This finding was consistent with previous AHRQ research using hospital self-reports, she added.

The study sample comprised 172 rural hospitals that merged during the period 2009-2016 in 32 states and 549 nonmerged comparison hospitals. In the premerger period, 74.5% of hospitals that merged provided maternal/neonatal care. This percentage decreased to 61.1% in the postmerger period. In contrast, the percentage of comparison hospitals providing these services remained stable during both periods (64.3% and 65.1%, respectively).

After weighting and adjusting for variables, the researchers found that from the premerger period to 1 year post merger, the percentage of hospitals providing these services decreased by 6.7 percentage points more for merged than for comparison hospitals (P = .06).

In the second year post merger, the percentage of hospitals providing maternal/neonatal services decreased by 7.2 percentage points more for merged than for comparison hospitals (P = .09).

“We did not, however, see a reduction in the volume of maternity services in rural communities, which suggests that women are just traveling farther to give birth,” Dr. Liang said.

Although mergers might salvage hospitals’ sustainability, the authors wrote, they do not necessarily mean that service lines are retained or that hospitals are as responsive to community needs as they were before the merger.

The analysis concluded that continuing access to maternal/neonatal care in rural areas is not a given. “Stakeholders, including payers, policy makers, and community-based organizations, need to monitor the availability of maternity services to ensure women have options in childbirth providers,” Dr. Liang said.

She and her associates called for payer-supported, multi-stakeholder initiatives to transform rural health care to be both financially sustainable and responsive to population needs.

The study by Dr. Handley and colleagues was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Eunice Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). Dr. Handley reported grants from the NIH outside of the submitted work. Several coauthors reported grants from, variously, the NIH, the NICHD, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The study by Dr. Liang and associates was supported by the AHRQ’s Center for Financing, Access, and Cost Trends, and the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. The authors disclosed no competing interests.

Ready access to maternity services in rural areas is not a given, yet access to obstetric hospitals is associated with decreased rates of preterm birth and neonatal/perinatal mortality.

Little is known, however, about the availability of obstetric centers with respect to birth volume, geographic distribution among states, proximity of obstetric hospitals, and urban adjacency.

“This knowledge is fundamental to inform clinical and policy efforts to optimize perinatal regionalization, care delivery, and outcomes,” wrote Sara C. Handley, MD, MSCE, of the Roberts Center for Pediatric Research at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and colleagues, who undertook to fill that information gap in a study. It was published online Oct. 8 in JAMA Network Open.

Her group found birth volumes varied among obstetric hospitals, with many low-volume facilities located in rural, even isolated, areas, which suggests a need to ensure better access to perinatal care for women in these locations.

Using American Hospital Association data, the researchers examined the birth volumes and geographic distributions of 3,207 maternity hospitals from 2010 to 2018. In a cohort of 34,054,951 births, 56.8% occurred in high-volume obstetric facilities, and 37.4% in low-volume hospitals. Among the latter, 18.9% were isolated in location and not within 30 miles of any other obstetric hospital.

Most infants (19,327,487) were born in hospitals with more than 2,000 births per year, the study found, but a substantial 2,528,259, or 7.4%, were born in low-volume centers reporting 10 to 500 births annually.

“We were surprised by the number of low-volume hospitals and the number of births in low-volume hospitals,” Dr. Handley said in an interview. Many low-volume hospitals are in rural areas, which may require patients to drive long distances. These hospitals are at high risk of closure and such closures may further increase travel time.

Among low-volume hospitals, 23.9% were within the study proximity threshold of 30 miles of a hospital with more than 2,000 deliveries per year. “And when you’re in labor, even 30 miles is a long drive,” Dr. Handley said.

According to the authors, these findings highlight the need to balance care availability and sufficient patient volume by ensuring access and referral to high-quality perinatal care. They suggest perinatal care regionalization policies need review to improve maternal and infant outcomes.

But although the need is pressing, meeting it will not happen quickly, Dr. Handley said. “Change will require buy-in from multiple stakeholders and investment at many levels.”

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has previously raised the alarm about general health disparities among women in underserved rural communities.

Anne L. Banfield, MD, director of women’s health services at Davis Medical Center in the mountain town of Elkins, W.V., is one obstetrician/gynecologist who is all too familiar with the problem of shrinking perinatal facilities. “Closures have impacted services,” she said in an interview, noting that one hospital in her region closed its birthing unit because of financial considerations. “The next closest facility to ours is 20 miles to the west and more than 60 miles in any other direction,” she said. “And geography can create challenges. Because we’re located in the mountains, it can take 2 hours to get to our facility.”

The hope is that these findings will inform discussions on regionalization policy for perinatal care to improve maternal and infant outcomes and address concerns about isolated obstetric hospitals, the authors said.

Dr. Banfield emphasized that obstetric facilities should be made a priority even if they’re less profitable than other services and not a major contributor to the bottom line. But that will require rethinking reimbursement models to align with community needs. “Everyone has a mother – no one springs from a pod – but the fact is, we’re not paying enough for maternal health care,” she said.

A top priority, she noted, is attracting sufficient staff; not only doctors, but also nurses and midwives with the skill sets required for perinatal care, which differ from those of general surgery and outpatient services. “We have to make financial changes to make this care feasible,” Dr. Banfield said.

In similar recent research, a study published online in the October issue of Health Affairs, showed that with rural hospitals facing increased financial distress, they may merge with other hospitals/systems, potentially reducing service lines that are less profitable or that duplicate services offered by the acquiring institution. Among those often on the chopping block is perinatal care.

“Our analysis of rural hospital discharge data found that merged hospitals were more likely than independent hospitals to eliminate maternal, neonatal, and also surgical care,” lead author Lan Liang, PhD, senior economist at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) in Rockville, Md., said in an interview. This finding was consistent with previous AHRQ research using hospital self-reports, she added.

The study sample comprised 172 rural hospitals that merged during the period 2009-2016 in 32 states and 549 nonmerged comparison hospitals. In the premerger period, 74.5% of hospitals that merged provided maternal/neonatal care. This percentage decreased to 61.1% in the postmerger period. In contrast, the percentage of comparison hospitals providing these services remained stable during both periods (64.3% and 65.1%, respectively).

After weighting and adjusting for variables, the researchers found that from the premerger period to 1 year post merger, the percentage of hospitals providing these services decreased by 6.7 percentage points more for merged than for comparison hospitals (P = .06).

In the second year post merger, the percentage of hospitals providing maternal/neonatal services decreased by 7.2 percentage points more for merged than for comparison hospitals (P = .09).

“We did not, however, see a reduction in the volume of maternity services in rural communities, which suggests that women are just traveling farther to give birth,” Dr. Liang said.

Although mergers might salvage hospitals’ sustainability, the authors wrote, they do not necessarily mean that service lines are retained or that hospitals are as responsive to community needs as they were before the merger.

The analysis concluded that continuing access to maternal/neonatal care in rural areas is not a given. “Stakeholders, including payers, policy makers, and community-based organizations, need to monitor the availability of maternity services to ensure women have options in childbirth providers,” Dr. Liang said.

She and her associates called for payer-supported, multi-stakeholder initiatives to transform rural health care to be both financially sustainable and responsive to population needs.

The study by Dr. Handley and colleagues was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Eunice Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). Dr. Handley reported grants from the NIH outside of the submitted work. Several coauthors reported grants from, variously, the NIH, the NICHD, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The study by Dr. Liang and associates was supported by the AHRQ’s Center for Financing, Access, and Cost Trends, and the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. The authors disclosed no competing interests.

Ready access to maternity services in rural areas is not a given, yet access to obstetric hospitals is associated with decreased rates of preterm birth and neonatal/perinatal mortality.

Little is known, however, about the availability of obstetric centers with respect to birth volume, geographic distribution among states, proximity of obstetric hospitals, and urban adjacency.

“This knowledge is fundamental to inform clinical and policy efforts to optimize perinatal regionalization, care delivery, and outcomes,” wrote Sara C. Handley, MD, MSCE, of the Roberts Center for Pediatric Research at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and colleagues, who undertook to fill that information gap in a study. It was published online Oct. 8 in JAMA Network Open.

Her group found birth volumes varied among obstetric hospitals, with many low-volume facilities located in rural, even isolated, areas, which suggests a need to ensure better access to perinatal care for women in these locations.

Using American Hospital Association data, the researchers examined the birth volumes and geographic distributions of 3,207 maternity hospitals from 2010 to 2018. In a cohort of 34,054,951 births, 56.8% occurred in high-volume obstetric facilities, and 37.4% in low-volume hospitals. Among the latter, 18.9% were isolated in location and not within 30 miles of any other obstetric hospital.

Most infants (19,327,487) were born in hospitals with more than 2,000 births per year, the study found, but a substantial 2,528,259, or 7.4%, were born in low-volume centers reporting 10 to 500 births annually.

“We were surprised by the number of low-volume hospitals and the number of births in low-volume hospitals,” Dr. Handley said in an interview. Many low-volume hospitals are in rural areas, which may require patients to drive long distances. These hospitals are at high risk of closure and such closures may further increase travel time.

Among low-volume hospitals, 23.9% were within the study proximity threshold of 30 miles of a hospital with more than 2,000 deliveries per year. “And when you’re in labor, even 30 miles is a long drive,” Dr. Handley said.

According to the authors, these findings highlight the need to balance care availability and sufficient patient volume by ensuring access and referral to high-quality perinatal care. They suggest perinatal care regionalization policies need review to improve maternal and infant outcomes.

But although the need is pressing, meeting it will not happen quickly, Dr. Handley said. “Change will require buy-in from multiple stakeholders and investment at many levels.”

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has previously raised the alarm about general health disparities among women in underserved rural communities.

Anne L. Banfield, MD, director of women’s health services at Davis Medical Center in the mountain town of Elkins, W.V., is one obstetrician/gynecologist who is all too familiar with the problem of shrinking perinatal facilities. “Closures have impacted services,” she said in an interview, noting that one hospital in her region closed its birthing unit because of financial considerations. “The next closest facility to ours is 20 miles to the west and more than 60 miles in any other direction,” she said. “And geography can create challenges. Because we’re located in the mountains, it can take 2 hours to get to our facility.”

The hope is that these findings will inform discussions on regionalization policy for perinatal care to improve maternal and infant outcomes and address concerns about isolated obstetric hospitals, the authors said.

Dr. Banfield emphasized that obstetric facilities should be made a priority even if they’re less profitable than other services and not a major contributor to the bottom line. But that will require rethinking reimbursement models to align with community needs. “Everyone has a mother – no one springs from a pod – but the fact is, we’re not paying enough for maternal health care,” she said.

A top priority, she noted, is attracting sufficient staff; not only doctors, but also nurses and midwives with the skill sets required for perinatal care, which differ from those of general surgery and outpatient services. “We have to make financial changes to make this care feasible,” Dr. Banfield said.

In similar recent research, a study published online in the October issue of Health Affairs, showed that with rural hospitals facing increased financial distress, they may merge with other hospitals/systems, potentially reducing service lines that are less profitable or that duplicate services offered by the acquiring institution. Among those often on the chopping block is perinatal care.

“Our analysis of rural hospital discharge data found that merged hospitals were more likely than independent hospitals to eliminate maternal, neonatal, and also surgical care,” lead author Lan Liang, PhD, senior economist at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) in Rockville, Md., said in an interview. This finding was consistent with previous AHRQ research using hospital self-reports, she added.

The study sample comprised 172 rural hospitals that merged during the period 2009-2016 in 32 states and 549 nonmerged comparison hospitals. In the premerger period, 74.5% of hospitals that merged provided maternal/neonatal care. This percentage decreased to 61.1% in the postmerger period. In contrast, the percentage of comparison hospitals providing these services remained stable during both periods (64.3% and 65.1%, respectively).

After weighting and adjusting for variables, the researchers found that from the premerger period to 1 year post merger, the percentage of hospitals providing these services decreased by 6.7 percentage points more for merged than for comparison hospitals (P = .06).

In the second year post merger, the percentage of hospitals providing maternal/neonatal services decreased by 7.2 percentage points more for merged than for comparison hospitals (P = .09).

“We did not, however, see a reduction in the volume of maternity services in rural communities, which suggests that women are just traveling farther to give birth,” Dr. Liang said.

Although mergers might salvage hospitals’ sustainability, the authors wrote, they do not necessarily mean that service lines are retained or that hospitals are as responsive to community needs as they were before the merger.

The analysis concluded that continuing access to maternal/neonatal care in rural areas is not a given. “Stakeholders, including payers, policy makers, and community-based organizations, need to monitor the availability of maternity services to ensure women have options in childbirth providers,” Dr. Liang said.

She and her associates called for payer-supported, multi-stakeholder initiatives to transform rural health care to be both financially sustainable and responsive to population needs.

The study by Dr. Handley and colleagues was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Eunice Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). Dr. Handley reported grants from the NIH outside of the submitted work. Several coauthors reported grants from, variously, the NIH, the NICHD, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The study by Dr. Liang and associates was supported by the AHRQ’s Center for Financing, Access, and Cost Trends, and the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. The authors disclosed no competing interests.

An 8-month high-intensity resistance and impact training program (HiRIT, Onero) led to greater gains in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and leg/back strength than a low-intensity Pilates-based program (Buff Bones).
 

BeyondImages/Getty Images

These findings are from the Medication and Exercise for Osteoporosis (MEDEX-OP) trial, which included 115 postmenopausal women with low bone mass. Patients were randomly assigned to attend either the HiRIT or Pilates-based exercise program. The participants attended supervised 45-min sessions twice weekly.

HiRIT was better than the low-intensity Pilates-based exercise program for enhancing bone mass, muscle strength, functional performance, and stature, the researchers reported. The low-intensity program did improve function, but to a lesser extent

Of the 115 participants, most (86) were not taking osteoporosis medicine. For the 29 women who were receiving it, the medication appeared to enhance the effect of exercise.

Melanie Fischbacher, PhD candidate, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, presented these findings in an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; the study was also published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The study’s senior author, Belinda R. Beck, PhD, director of the Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia, developed the Onero HiRIT program and has licensed it to others in Australia.

“It is a very effective program and we have shown it can be undertaken safely, but it must be supervised because of the heavy weights and high-risk clientele,” Beck stressed to this news organization.

“This is not a program you should just hand to a patient and tell them to do in a gym,” she said.

“Both forms of exercise in our study were beneficial for functional outcomes but Onero improved back extensor strength, mobility and stature considerably more than Buff Bones,” Ms. Fischbacher said in an interview.

Nevertheless, “the contribution of functional capacity to risk of falling and fracture cannot be overstated, and bone medications do not address function,” she noted.

“More trials combining bone medication and bone-targeted exercise are needed,” the researchers concluded.

Compliance stands out, study supports high-intensity exercise

Kristen M. Beavers, PhD, MPH, RD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization that participant compliance in the study really stands out.

“Compliance to an 8-month, 2 day/week high-intensity resistance training program among older women with low bone mass was quite good in this study [>80%], with very few adverse events reported,” said Dr. Beavers, of the department of health and exercise science, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, N.C.

“A lot of individuals wouldn’t even consider recommending this type/intensity of exercise to this population, because they are worried it is too risky and/or the uptake will be low,” she said.

Although the benefit in BMD and strength wasn’t seen universally across all bone/muscle outcomes assessed, the findings do reinforce the idea that high-intensity exercise is more efficacious for bone health than low-intensity exercise, she noted.

“The possible additive effect of high-intensity exercise when combined with medication is worth confirming in larger, adequately designed/powered studies,” according to Dr. Beavers.

“The general consensus in the field is that higher-intensity exercise is more osteogenic than low-intensity exercise, but improving muscle mass, quality, and function (including balance) are also important to reduce the risk of falls, which is a major contributor to incident fracture,” she noted.

Exercise, even low-intensity exercise, reduces the risk for falls, as shown in a recent meta-analysis, she added. This is something antiresorptive medications don’t do.
 

Building on the LIFTMOR and LIFTMOR-M Trials

Previously, the Australian group showed that HiRIT is efficacious and safe for bone formation in individuals with low to very low bone mass – in postmenopausal women in the LIFTMOR study (J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Oct 4 .doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3284), and in men in the LIFTMOR-M study.

The current study compared two exercise programs. The researchers randomly assigned 86 women who were not taking antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (42) or low-intensity (44) exercise program. They also assigned 29 women who were receiving antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (15) or low-intensity (14) exercise program.

In the high-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (12), risedronate (2) or alendronate (1). In the low-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (9), risedronate (1), alendronate (3), or zoledronic acid (1).

The mean age of the women was 64-68 years. The mean lumbar spine T score was –1.5 to –2.3, and the mean femoral neck T score was –1.7 to –2.0 (determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) .

The HiRIT training program consisted of three free-weight resistance training exercises (deadlift, back squat, overhead press), one high-impact exercise (jump drop), and two balance exercises. The exercises varied each session.

The low-intensity training consisted of bone-specific Pilates-based exercises performed on the mat; standing weight-bearing exercise with 1-kg dumbbells; and impact exercises, such as heel drops and stomping.

At 8 months, compared with women in the low-intensity exercise program, those in the HiRIT program demonstrated greater improvement in lumbar spine BMD (1.9% vs. 0.1%) and stature (0.2 cm vs. 0.0 cm), muscle strength, and functional performance.

Functional performance improved with both exercise programs, but the HiRIT program led to greater leg and back muscle strength and better results in the five times sit-to-stand test (P < .05).

HiRIT plus bone medication improved BMD at the femoral neck and total hip, whereas HiRIT alone did not. Low-intensity exercise plus bone medication improved BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip, whereas low-intensity exercise alone did not.

The retention rate was 90%. The rate of exercise compliance was 83% in the high-intensity group and 82% in the low-intensity group.

Thirty falls were reported by 24 participants (21%). One fracture occurred in each exercise group. Three adverse events occurred in the low-intensity group, and four occurred in the high-intensity group.

Dr. Beck owns the Bone Clinic and sells licenses to the Onero program. The other researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An 8-month high-intensity resistance and impact training program (HiRIT, Onero) led to greater gains in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and leg/back strength than a low-intensity Pilates-based program (Buff Bones).
 

BeyondImages/Getty Images

These findings are from the Medication and Exercise for Osteoporosis (MEDEX-OP) trial, which included 115 postmenopausal women with low bone mass. Patients were randomly assigned to attend either the HiRIT or Pilates-based exercise program. The participants attended supervised 45-min sessions twice weekly.

HiRIT was better than the low-intensity Pilates-based exercise program for enhancing bone mass, muscle strength, functional performance, and stature, the researchers reported. The low-intensity program did improve function, but to a lesser extent

Of the 115 participants, most (86) were not taking osteoporosis medicine. For the 29 women who were receiving it, the medication appeared to enhance the effect of exercise.

Melanie Fischbacher, PhD candidate, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, presented these findings in an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; the study was also published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The study’s senior author, Belinda R. Beck, PhD, director of the Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia, developed the Onero HiRIT program and has licensed it to others in Australia.

“It is a very effective program and we have shown it can be undertaken safely, but it must be supervised because of the heavy weights and high-risk clientele,” Beck stressed to this news organization.

“This is not a program you should just hand to a patient and tell them to do in a gym,” she said.

“Both forms of exercise in our study were beneficial for functional outcomes but Onero improved back extensor strength, mobility and stature considerably more than Buff Bones,” Ms. Fischbacher said in an interview.

Nevertheless, “the contribution of functional capacity to risk of falling and fracture cannot be overstated, and bone medications do not address function,” she noted.

“More trials combining bone medication and bone-targeted exercise are needed,” the researchers concluded.

Compliance stands out, study supports high-intensity exercise

Kristen M. Beavers, PhD, MPH, RD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization that participant compliance in the study really stands out.

“Compliance to an 8-month, 2 day/week high-intensity resistance training program among older women with low bone mass was quite good in this study [>80%], with very few adverse events reported,” said Dr. Beavers, of the department of health and exercise science, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, N.C.

“A lot of individuals wouldn’t even consider recommending this type/intensity of exercise to this population, because they are worried it is too risky and/or the uptake will be low,” she said.

Although the benefit in BMD and strength wasn’t seen universally across all bone/muscle outcomes assessed, the findings do reinforce the idea that high-intensity exercise is more efficacious for bone health than low-intensity exercise, she noted.

“The possible additive effect of high-intensity exercise when combined with medication is worth confirming in larger, adequately designed/powered studies,” according to Dr. Beavers.

“The general consensus in the field is that higher-intensity exercise is more osteogenic than low-intensity exercise, but improving muscle mass, quality, and function (including balance) are also important to reduce the risk of falls, which is a major contributor to incident fracture,” she noted.

Exercise, even low-intensity exercise, reduces the risk for falls, as shown in a recent meta-analysis, she added. This is something antiresorptive medications don’t do.
 

Building on the LIFTMOR and LIFTMOR-M Trials

Previously, the Australian group showed that HiRIT is efficacious and safe for bone formation in individuals with low to very low bone mass – in postmenopausal women in the LIFTMOR study (J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Oct 4 .doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3284), and in men in the LIFTMOR-M study.

The current study compared two exercise programs. The researchers randomly assigned 86 women who were not taking antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (42) or low-intensity (44) exercise program. They also assigned 29 women who were receiving antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (15) or low-intensity (14) exercise program.

In the high-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (12), risedronate (2) or alendronate (1). In the low-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (9), risedronate (1), alendronate (3), or zoledronic acid (1).

The mean age of the women was 64-68 years. The mean lumbar spine T score was –1.5 to –2.3, and the mean femoral neck T score was –1.7 to –2.0 (determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) .

The HiRIT training program consisted of three free-weight resistance training exercises (deadlift, back squat, overhead press), one high-impact exercise (jump drop), and two balance exercises. The exercises varied each session.

The low-intensity training consisted of bone-specific Pilates-based exercises performed on the mat; standing weight-bearing exercise with 1-kg dumbbells; and impact exercises, such as heel drops and stomping.

At 8 months, compared with women in the low-intensity exercise program, those in the HiRIT program demonstrated greater improvement in lumbar spine BMD (1.9% vs. 0.1%) and stature (0.2 cm vs. 0.0 cm), muscle strength, and functional performance.

Functional performance improved with both exercise programs, but the HiRIT program led to greater leg and back muscle strength and better results in the five times sit-to-stand test (P < .05).

HiRIT plus bone medication improved BMD at the femoral neck and total hip, whereas HiRIT alone did not. Low-intensity exercise plus bone medication improved BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip, whereas low-intensity exercise alone did not.

The retention rate was 90%. The rate of exercise compliance was 83% in the high-intensity group and 82% in the low-intensity group.

Thirty falls were reported by 24 participants (21%). One fracture occurred in each exercise group. Three adverse events occurred in the low-intensity group, and four occurred in the high-intensity group.

Dr. Beck owns the Bone Clinic and sells licenses to the Onero program. The other researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An 8-month high-intensity resistance and impact training program (HiRIT, Onero) led to greater gains in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and leg/back strength than a low-intensity Pilates-based program (Buff Bones).
 

BeyondImages/Getty Images

These findings are from the Medication and Exercise for Osteoporosis (MEDEX-OP) trial, which included 115 postmenopausal women with low bone mass. Patients were randomly assigned to attend either the HiRIT or Pilates-based exercise program. The participants attended supervised 45-min sessions twice weekly.

HiRIT was better than the low-intensity Pilates-based exercise program for enhancing bone mass, muscle strength, functional performance, and stature, the researchers reported. The low-intensity program did improve function, but to a lesser extent

Of the 115 participants, most (86) were not taking osteoporosis medicine. For the 29 women who were receiving it, the medication appeared to enhance the effect of exercise.

Melanie Fischbacher, PhD candidate, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, presented these findings in an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; the study was also published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The study’s senior author, Belinda R. Beck, PhD, director of the Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia, developed the Onero HiRIT program and has licensed it to others in Australia.

“It is a very effective program and we have shown it can be undertaken safely, but it must be supervised because of the heavy weights and high-risk clientele,” Beck stressed to this news organization.

“This is not a program you should just hand to a patient and tell them to do in a gym,” she said.

“Both forms of exercise in our study were beneficial for functional outcomes but Onero improved back extensor strength, mobility and stature considerably more than Buff Bones,” Ms. Fischbacher said in an interview.

Nevertheless, “the contribution of functional capacity to risk of falling and fracture cannot be overstated, and bone medications do not address function,” she noted.

“More trials combining bone medication and bone-targeted exercise are needed,” the researchers concluded.

Compliance stands out, study supports high-intensity exercise

Kristen M. Beavers, PhD, MPH, RD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization that participant compliance in the study really stands out.

“Compliance to an 8-month, 2 day/week high-intensity resistance training program among older women with low bone mass was quite good in this study [>80%], with very few adverse events reported,” said Dr. Beavers, of the department of health and exercise science, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, N.C.

“A lot of individuals wouldn’t even consider recommending this type/intensity of exercise to this population, because they are worried it is too risky and/or the uptake will be low,” she said.

Although the benefit in BMD and strength wasn’t seen universally across all bone/muscle outcomes assessed, the findings do reinforce the idea that high-intensity exercise is more efficacious for bone health than low-intensity exercise, she noted.

“The possible additive effect of high-intensity exercise when combined with medication is worth confirming in larger, adequately designed/powered studies,” according to Dr. Beavers.

“The general consensus in the field is that higher-intensity exercise is more osteogenic than low-intensity exercise, but improving muscle mass, quality, and function (including balance) are also important to reduce the risk of falls, which is a major contributor to incident fracture,” she noted.

Exercise, even low-intensity exercise, reduces the risk for falls, as shown in a recent meta-analysis, she added. This is something antiresorptive medications don’t do.
 

Building on the LIFTMOR and LIFTMOR-M Trials

Previously, the Australian group showed that HiRIT is efficacious and safe for bone formation in individuals with low to very low bone mass – in postmenopausal women in the LIFTMOR study (J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Oct 4 .doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3284), and in men in the LIFTMOR-M study.

The current study compared two exercise programs. The researchers randomly assigned 86 women who were not taking antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (42) or low-intensity (44) exercise program. They also assigned 29 women who were receiving antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (15) or low-intensity (14) exercise program.

In the high-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (12), risedronate (2) or alendronate (1). In the low-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (9), risedronate (1), alendronate (3), or zoledronic acid (1).

The mean age of the women was 64-68 years. The mean lumbar spine T score was –1.5 to –2.3, and the mean femoral neck T score was –1.7 to –2.0 (determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) .

The HiRIT training program consisted of three free-weight resistance training exercises (deadlift, back squat, overhead press), one high-impact exercise (jump drop), and two balance exercises. The exercises varied each session.

The low-intensity training consisted of bone-specific Pilates-based exercises performed on the mat; standing weight-bearing exercise with 1-kg dumbbells; and impact exercises, such as heel drops and stomping.

At 8 months, compared with women in the low-intensity exercise program, those in the HiRIT program demonstrated greater improvement in lumbar spine BMD (1.9% vs. 0.1%) and stature (0.2 cm vs. 0.0 cm), muscle strength, and functional performance.

Functional performance improved with both exercise programs, but the HiRIT program led to greater leg and back muscle strength and better results in the five times sit-to-stand test (P < .05).

HiRIT plus bone medication improved BMD at the femoral neck and total hip, whereas HiRIT alone did not. Low-intensity exercise plus bone medication improved BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip, whereas low-intensity exercise alone did not.

The retention rate was 90%. The rate of exercise compliance was 83% in the high-intensity group and 82% in the low-intensity group.

Thirty falls were reported by 24 participants (21%). One fracture occurred in each exercise group. Three adverse events occurred in the low-intensity group, and four occurred in the high-intensity group.

Dr. Beck owns the Bone Clinic and sells licenses to the Onero program. The other researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) has been approved for use in early breast cancer for certain patients. One expert has described the drug as the first advance for this patient population in 20 years.

Abemaciclib had already been approved for use in the treatment of HR+, HER2– advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Now it is also approved for use in HR+, HER2– early breast cancer for patients who have high-risk, node-positive disease and whose tumors have a Ki-67 score of 20% or higher, as determined by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved test.

The FDA also approved the Ki-67 IHC MIB-1 pharmDx (Dako Omnis) assay for use as a companion diagnostic test.

This is the first CDK4/6 inhibitor to be approved for use in this patient population.

Approximately 70% of all breast cancers are of the HR+, HER2– subtype.

The approval is based on some of the results from the monarchE study, which was presented last year at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology and was simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The results showed that the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors) significantly improved invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), which was defined on the basis of the length of time before breast cancer comes back, any new cancer develops, or death.

The 2-year IDFS rates were 92.2% with the combination vs. 88.7% for endocrine therapy alone for the overall patient population.

“This is the first time in more than 20 years that we have seen an advance in the adjuvant treatment of this form of breast cancer,” lead investigator Stephen Johnston, MD, PhD, from the Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, said at the meeting, as reported at the time by this news organization.

Reacting to the findings, Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, head of the division of early drug development at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, said, “This is a very important trial and the findings will change practice.”

He predicted that once the drug is approved for use in high-risk HR+, HER2– early breast cancer, “the new standard of care for these patients will be to add 2 years of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy.”

In a press release about the new approval from the manufacturer (Lilly), another investigator on the monarchE study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, agreed that the results are practice changing. She said that the combination of abemaciclib and endocrine therapy is a potential new standard of care for this patient population. “We are encouraged by the marked reduction in the risk of recurrence even beyond the 2-year treatment period in these patients, and I’m grateful to be able to offer this as a treatment option to my patients,” she said.

On Twitter, she commented that restricting the indication to patients who show Ki67 ≥20% is “interesting,” inasmuch as benefits were seen in patients with both low and high Ki67.

Hal Burstein, MD, from Dana-Farber, also found this detail “interesting, as Ki67 testing remains a very controversial topic and difficult to standardize.”

Replying, Pedro Exman, MD, from the Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, in São Paulo, said: “Does it make sense to approve only in a subset of patients based in a positive subgroup analysis of a positive ITT study that was not even described in the JCO publication?”

Other experts said they were eagerly awaiting further results, particularly on overall survival, from the monarchE trial. New data are due to be presented on Oct. 14 at an ESMO virtual plenary session.

Commenting late last year about these results, George W. Sledge Jr, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., said that the median follow-up time “is still quite short for a study of ER+ adjuvant therapy, where the majority of recurrences and deaths occur after 5 years in many studies.”

Consequently, “we still have a long way to go to understand the ultimate effects of CDK4/6 inhibition on early-stage ER+ breast cancer, particularly on late recurrences,” he told this news organization at the time.

Agreed, said C. Kent Osborne, MD, codirector of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and founding director of the Duncan Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex. The results are “very encouraging, especially in the subgroup of tumors with high proliferation” (identified by the K1-67 score).

However, Dr. Osborne also urged caution in the interpretation of the results, “given the still rather short follow-up, given that that ER+ disease is known for its persistent recurrence rate, even past 10 years.”

He also noted that “this class of inhibitors is likely cytostatic, rather than cytocidal, meaning that it blocks cell proliferation rather than killing the cells.” Questions therefore remain over whether the survival curves for combination therapy will come together with those for endocrine therapy alone once patients stop taking the drug.


 

Study details

The monarchE trial involved patients with HR+, HER2–, high-risk early breast cancer who had undergone surgery and, as indicated, radiotherapy and/or adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with four or more positive nodes or one to three nodes and either tumors of size ≥5 cm, histologic grade 3, or central Ki-67 ≥20% were eligible; 5,637 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard-of-care adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with or without abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily for 2 years).

A preplanned interim analysis was carried out after 323 IDFS events were observed in the intent-to-treat population. The results, as published last year in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, show that abemaciclib plus ET yielded superior IDFS in comparison with ET alone (P = .01; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.93), with 2-year IDFS rates of 92.2% vs. 88.7%.

In the press release announcing the approval of the new indication, the manufacturer notes that the approval was based on the results from a subgroup of 2,003 patients whose tumors had a Ki-67 score of ≥20% and who were also at high risk for recurrence (≥four positive axillary lymph nodes [ALN], or one-three positive ALN with grade 3 disease and/or tumor size ≥5 cm).

There was a statistically significant improvement in IDFS for this prespecified subgroup of patients (HR, 0.643; 95% CI, 0.475-0.872; P = .0042).

With additional follow-up, conducted post hoc, the results showed a 37% decrease in the risk for breast cancer recurrence or death, compared with ET alone (HR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.49-0.80) and an absolute benefit in IDFS event rate of 7.1% at 3 years. IDFS was 86.1% for abemaciclib plus ET vs. 79.0% for ET alone.

Adverse reactions from monarchE were consistent with the known safety profile for abemaciclib, the company noted. Safety and tolerability were evaluated in 5,591 patients. The most common adverse reactions reported (≥10%) with abemaciclib plus ET vs. ET alone were diarrhea (84% vs. 9%), infections (51% vs. 39%), neutropenia (46% vs. 6%), fatigue (41% vs. 18%), leukopenia (38% vs. 7%), nausea (30% vs. 9%), anemia (24% vs. 4%), headache (20% vs. 15%), vomiting (18% vs. 4.6%), stomatitis (14% vs. 5%), lymphopenia (14% vs. 3%), thrombocytopenia (13% vs. 2%), decreased appetite (12% vs. 2.4%), increased ALT (12% vs. 6%), increased AST (12% vs. 5%), dizziness (11% vs. 7%), rash (11% vs. 4.5%), and alopecia (11% vs. 2.7 %).

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

The CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) has been approved for use in early breast cancer for certain patients. One expert has described the drug as the first advance for this patient population in 20 years.

Abemaciclib had already been approved for use in the treatment of HR+, HER2– advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Now it is also approved for use in HR+, HER2– early breast cancer for patients who have high-risk, node-positive disease and whose tumors have a Ki-67 score of 20% or higher, as determined by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved test.

The FDA also approved the Ki-67 IHC MIB-1 pharmDx (Dako Omnis) assay for use as a companion diagnostic test.

This is the first CDK4/6 inhibitor to be approved for use in this patient population.

Approximately 70% of all breast cancers are of the HR+, HER2– subtype.

The approval is based on some of the results from the monarchE study, which was presented last year at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology and was simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The results showed that the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors) significantly improved invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), which was defined on the basis of the length of time before breast cancer comes back, any new cancer develops, or death.

The 2-year IDFS rates were 92.2% with the combination vs. 88.7% for endocrine therapy alone for the overall patient population.

“This is the first time in more than 20 years that we have seen an advance in the adjuvant treatment of this form of breast cancer,” lead investigator Stephen Johnston, MD, PhD, from the Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, said at the meeting, as reported at the time by this news organization.

Reacting to the findings, Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, head of the division of early drug development at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, said, “This is a very important trial and the findings will change practice.”

He predicted that once the drug is approved for use in high-risk HR+, HER2– early breast cancer, “the new standard of care for these patients will be to add 2 years of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy.”

In a press release about the new approval from the manufacturer (Lilly), another investigator on the monarchE study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, agreed that the results are practice changing. She said that the combination of abemaciclib and endocrine therapy is a potential new standard of care for this patient population. “We are encouraged by the marked reduction in the risk of recurrence even beyond the 2-year treatment period in these patients, and I’m grateful to be able to offer this as a treatment option to my patients,” she said.

On Twitter, she commented that restricting the indication to patients who show Ki67 ≥20% is “interesting,” inasmuch as benefits were seen in patients with both low and high Ki67.

Hal Burstein, MD, from Dana-Farber, also found this detail “interesting, as Ki67 testing remains a very controversial topic and difficult to standardize.”

Replying, Pedro Exman, MD, from the Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, in São Paulo, said: “Does it make sense to approve only in a subset of patients based in a positive subgroup analysis of a positive ITT study that was not even described in the JCO publication?”

Other experts said they were eagerly awaiting further results, particularly on overall survival, from the monarchE trial. New data are due to be presented on Oct. 14 at an ESMO virtual plenary session.

Commenting late last year about these results, George W. Sledge Jr, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., said that the median follow-up time “is still quite short for a study of ER+ adjuvant therapy, where the majority of recurrences and deaths occur after 5 years in many studies.”

Consequently, “we still have a long way to go to understand the ultimate effects of CDK4/6 inhibition on early-stage ER+ breast cancer, particularly on late recurrences,” he told this news organization at the time.

Agreed, said C. Kent Osborne, MD, codirector of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and founding director of the Duncan Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex. The results are “very encouraging, especially in the subgroup of tumors with high proliferation” (identified by the K1-67 score).

However, Dr. Osborne also urged caution in the interpretation of the results, “given the still rather short follow-up, given that that ER+ disease is known for its persistent recurrence rate, even past 10 years.”

He also noted that “this class of inhibitors is likely cytostatic, rather than cytocidal, meaning that it blocks cell proliferation rather than killing the cells.” Questions therefore remain over whether the survival curves for combination therapy will come together with those for endocrine therapy alone once patients stop taking the drug.


 

Study details

The monarchE trial involved patients with HR+, HER2–, high-risk early breast cancer who had undergone surgery and, as indicated, radiotherapy and/or adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with four or more positive nodes or one to three nodes and either tumors of size ≥5 cm, histologic grade 3, or central Ki-67 ≥20% were eligible; 5,637 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard-of-care adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with or without abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily for 2 years).

A preplanned interim analysis was carried out after 323 IDFS events were observed in the intent-to-treat population. The results, as published last year in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, show that abemaciclib plus ET yielded superior IDFS in comparison with ET alone (P = .01; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.93), with 2-year IDFS rates of 92.2% vs. 88.7%.

In the press release announcing the approval of the new indication, the manufacturer notes that the approval was based on the results from a subgroup of 2,003 patients whose tumors had a Ki-67 score of ≥20% and who were also at high risk for recurrence (≥four positive axillary lymph nodes [ALN], or one-three positive ALN with grade 3 disease and/or tumor size ≥5 cm).

There was a statistically significant improvement in IDFS for this prespecified subgroup of patients (HR, 0.643; 95% CI, 0.475-0.872; P = .0042).

With additional follow-up, conducted post hoc, the results showed a 37% decrease in the risk for breast cancer recurrence or death, compared with ET alone (HR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.49-0.80) and an absolute benefit in IDFS event rate of 7.1% at 3 years. IDFS was 86.1% for abemaciclib plus ET vs. 79.0% for ET alone.

Adverse reactions from monarchE were consistent with the known safety profile for abemaciclib, the company noted. Safety and tolerability were evaluated in 5,591 patients. The most common adverse reactions reported (≥10%) with abemaciclib plus ET vs. ET alone were diarrhea (84% vs. 9%), infections (51% vs. 39%), neutropenia (46% vs. 6%), fatigue (41% vs. 18%), leukopenia (38% vs. 7%), nausea (30% vs. 9%), anemia (24% vs. 4%), headache (20% vs. 15%), vomiting (18% vs. 4.6%), stomatitis (14% vs. 5%), lymphopenia (14% vs. 3%), thrombocytopenia (13% vs. 2%), decreased appetite (12% vs. 2.4%), increased ALT (12% vs. 6%), increased AST (12% vs. 5%), dizziness (11% vs. 7%), rash (11% vs. 4.5%), and alopecia (11% vs. 2.7 %).

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

The CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) has been approved for use in early breast cancer for certain patients. One expert has described the drug as the first advance for this patient population in 20 years.

Abemaciclib had already been approved for use in the treatment of HR+, HER2– advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Now it is also approved for use in HR+, HER2– early breast cancer for patients who have high-risk, node-positive disease and whose tumors have a Ki-67 score of 20% or higher, as determined by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved test.

The FDA also approved the Ki-67 IHC MIB-1 pharmDx (Dako Omnis) assay for use as a companion diagnostic test.

This is the first CDK4/6 inhibitor to be approved for use in this patient population.

Approximately 70% of all breast cancers are of the HR+, HER2– subtype.

The approval is based on some of the results from the monarchE study, which was presented last year at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology and was simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The results showed that the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors) significantly improved invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), which was defined on the basis of the length of time before breast cancer comes back, any new cancer develops, or death.

The 2-year IDFS rates were 92.2% with the combination vs. 88.7% for endocrine therapy alone for the overall patient population.

“This is the first time in more than 20 years that we have seen an advance in the adjuvant treatment of this form of breast cancer,” lead investigator Stephen Johnston, MD, PhD, from the Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, said at the meeting, as reported at the time by this news organization.

Reacting to the findings, Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, head of the division of early drug development at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, said, “This is a very important trial and the findings will change practice.”

He predicted that once the drug is approved for use in high-risk HR+, HER2– early breast cancer, “the new standard of care for these patients will be to add 2 years of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy.”

In a press release about the new approval from the manufacturer (Lilly), another investigator on the monarchE study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, agreed that the results are practice changing. She said that the combination of abemaciclib and endocrine therapy is a potential new standard of care for this patient population. “We are encouraged by the marked reduction in the risk of recurrence even beyond the 2-year treatment period in these patients, and I’m grateful to be able to offer this as a treatment option to my patients,” she said.

On Twitter, she commented that restricting the indication to patients who show Ki67 ≥20% is “interesting,” inasmuch as benefits were seen in patients with both low and high Ki67.

Hal Burstein, MD, from Dana-Farber, also found this detail “interesting, as Ki67 testing remains a very controversial topic and difficult to standardize.”

Replying, Pedro Exman, MD, from the Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, in São Paulo, said: “Does it make sense to approve only in a subset of patients based in a positive subgroup analysis of a positive ITT study that was not even described in the JCO publication?”

Other experts said they were eagerly awaiting further results, particularly on overall survival, from the monarchE trial. New data are due to be presented on Oct. 14 at an ESMO virtual plenary session.

Commenting late last year about these results, George W. Sledge Jr, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., said that the median follow-up time “is still quite short for a study of ER+ adjuvant therapy, where the majority of recurrences and deaths occur after 5 years in many studies.”

Consequently, “we still have a long way to go to understand the ultimate effects of CDK4/6 inhibition on early-stage ER+ breast cancer, particularly on late recurrences,” he told this news organization at the time.

Agreed, said C. Kent Osborne, MD, codirector of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and founding director of the Duncan Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex. The results are “very encouraging, especially in the subgroup of tumors with high proliferation” (identified by the K1-67 score).

However, Dr. Osborne also urged caution in the interpretation of the results, “given the still rather short follow-up, given that that ER+ disease is known for its persistent recurrence rate, even past 10 years.”

He also noted that “this class of inhibitors is likely cytostatic, rather than cytocidal, meaning that it blocks cell proliferation rather than killing the cells.” Questions therefore remain over whether the survival curves for combination therapy will come together with those for endocrine therapy alone once patients stop taking the drug.


 

Study details

The monarchE trial involved patients with HR+, HER2–, high-risk early breast cancer who had undergone surgery and, as indicated, radiotherapy and/or adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with four or more positive nodes or one to three nodes and either tumors of size ≥5 cm, histologic grade 3, or central Ki-67 ≥20% were eligible; 5,637 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard-of-care adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with or without abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily for 2 years).

A preplanned interim analysis was carried out after 323 IDFS events were observed in the intent-to-treat population. The results, as published last year in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, show that abemaciclib plus ET yielded superior IDFS in comparison with ET alone (P = .01; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.93), with 2-year IDFS rates of 92.2% vs. 88.7%.

In the press release announcing the approval of the new indication, the manufacturer notes that the approval was based on the results from a subgroup of 2,003 patients whose tumors had a Ki-67 score of ≥20% and who were also at high risk for recurrence (≥four positive axillary lymph nodes [ALN], or one-three positive ALN with grade 3 disease and/or tumor size ≥5 cm).

There was a statistically significant improvement in IDFS for this prespecified subgroup of patients (HR, 0.643; 95% CI, 0.475-0.872; P = .0042).

With additional follow-up, conducted post hoc, the results showed a 37% decrease in the risk for breast cancer recurrence or death, compared with ET alone (HR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.49-0.80) and an absolute benefit in IDFS event rate of 7.1% at 3 years. IDFS was 86.1% for abemaciclib plus ET vs. 79.0% for ET alone.

Adverse reactions from monarchE were consistent with the known safety profile for abemaciclib, the company noted. Safety and tolerability were evaluated in 5,591 patients. The most common adverse reactions reported (≥10%) with abemaciclib plus ET vs. ET alone were diarrhea (84% vs. 9%), infections (51% vs. 39%), neutropenia (46% vs. 6%), fatigue (41% vs. 18%), leukopenia (38% vs. 7%), nausea (30% vs. 9%), anemia (24% vs. 4%), headache (20% vs. 15%), vomiting (18% vs. 4.6%), stomatitis (14% vs. 5%), lymphopenia (14% vs. 3%), thrombocytopenia (13% vs. 2%), decreased appetite (12% vs. 2.4%), increased ALT (12% vs. 6%), increased AST (12% vs. 5%), dizziness (11% vs. 7%), rash (11% vs. 4.5%), and alopecia (11% vs. 2.7 %).

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

An investigational oral form of parathyroid hormone (PTH 1-34), EB 613 (Entera Bio) met its primary efficacy outcome in a phase 2 dosing study involving postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density (BMD).

The adverse effect profile of the drug was similar to that of the injectable PTH 1-34 teriparatide (Forteo), which is approved for osteoporosis.

Arthur C. Santora, MD, chief medical officer, Entera Bio, presented 6-month findings from the study during an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research. The 3-month findings from the study were reported as a poster.

If the drug demonstrates efficacy and safety in larger phase 3 trials, it could be the first oral bone-building (anabolic) therapy for osteoporosis.

Clifford J. Rosen, MD, PhD, who was not involved with the research, told this news organization: “I think this is an intriguing study.” The most likely patients for oral PTH, he added, “are those that have osteoporosis, previous fracture, or very low BMD, particularly those unlikely or unwilling to take bisphosphonates.”

However, “this is very early in the process before this drug could come to market,” cautioned Dr. Rosen, who is director of the Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Maine Medical Research Institute, Scarborough.

“Much more data on efficacy are required at 12 and 24 months for phase 2, and then a full phase 3 [clinical trial] with high-risk fracture patients,” he said.

The company is seeking input from the Food and Drug Administration to develop the protocol for a phase 3 trial. They expect to start this trial in 2022 at sites in the United States, Europe, and Israel, Dr. Santora said.
 

Primary outcome met

The study randomly assigned 161 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or low BMD to receive placebo or the investigational oral PTH for 6 months.

Compared with women who received placebo, those who received the study drug experienced a significantly greater increase in the bone formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) from baseline to 3 months, thereby meeting the study’s primary outcome.

In secondary outcomes, women who received the 2.5-mg/d dose experienced a similar 6-month increase in BMD at the spine and greater increases in BMD at the total hip and femoral neck than those who received injectable teriparatide, Dr. Santora reported.

“The study’s key takeaway is that a once-daily oral PTH [tablet] has the potential to produce the same BMD effects as subcutaneous injections of PTH,” he said in an interview.

Additionally, “the drug was well tolerated when the dose was titrated by adding additional tablets, which suggests that the dose can be tailored to each patient,” he said.
 

Other study findings

Injectable teriparatide reduces the risk for vertebral fractures by up to 80%, Dr. Santora noted, but the fact that the drug must be administered by injection may deter some older patients from using it.

The company developed an oral form of biosynthetic human PTH with a proprietary drug delivery.

The researchers conducted the phase 2 study at four sites in Israel between June 2019 and May 2021. They enrolled women aged 50 years and older who had entered menopause at least 3 years earlier and who had osteoporosis or low BMD.

Forty-three women received placebo, and the others received oral PTH at doses of 0.5 mg/d (n = 25), 1.0 mg/d (n = 29), 1.5 mg/d (n = 28), 2.5 mg/d (n = 19), or at a dose that was titrated up to 2.5 mg/d starting at 1.5 mg/d for month 1, then 2 mg/d for month 2, and then 2.5 mg/d for months 3 to 6 (n = 17).

The mean age of the patients was 61 years, the mean body mass index was 25-27 kg/m², and the mean T score at the spine of –2.2 to –2.45.

Among the women who received 2.5 mg/d of oral PTH for the full 6 months, serum levels of the bone resorption marker C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) decreased 21% from baseline to 6 months, and serum levels of P1NP increased at month 1 and then decreased to baseline by month 6.

The women who received 2.5 mg/d of oral PTH for the full 6 months also demonstrated significantly greater increases in BMD at the lumbar spine (3.8%), total hip (1.4%), and femoral neck (2.4%), compared with women who received placebo.

The safety profile of oral PTH was consistent with that of subcutaneous PTH. Patients experienced headache, nausea, presyncope, and dizziness; there were no treatment-emergent hypercalcemia adverse events.
 

A few ‘unexpected findings’

Suzanne M. Jan De Beur, MD, outgoing ASBMR president, said, “Oral PTH appeared to increase BMD by [dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry] at the lumbar spine effectively and to a similar degree as teriparatide in previous studies.”

She identified two unexpected findings.

“There were increases in BMD by DXA at the femoral neck and total hip at 6 months that were [greater than those] seen in previous trials of teriparatide. Second, markers of bone resorption (CTX) decreased at 6 months, and this is in stark contrast to the increases observed with teriparatide treatment,” she noted in an interview.

Dr. Rosen also noted that “the decrease in CTX is very unusual for PTH and difficult to explain.” He added: “P1NP, a marker of bone formation, was not increased.”

Dr. Jan de Beur continued: “Teriparatide (PTH1-34) and abaloparatide are effective anabolic agents that we use to treat patients with high risk of osteoporotic fracture. Although effective, the burden of daily subcutaneous injection can be a barrier for older individuals, those with poor dexterity, and those that are averse to self-injection.

“Taken together, these results appear promising, that oral PTH may prove to be an effective anabolic agent for osteoporosis treatment,” she summarized.

She stressed that a larger phase 3 study is needed to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

The study was funded by Entera Bio. Dr. Santora is chief medical officer of Entera Bio.

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

An investigational oral form of parathyroid hormone (PTH 1-34), EB 613 (Entera Bio) met its primary efficacy outcome in a phase 2 dosing study involving postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density (BMD).

The adverse effect profile of the drug was similar to that of the injectable PTH 1-34 teriparatide (Forteo), which is approved for osteoporosis.

Arthur C. Santora, MD, chief medical officer, Entera Bio, presented 6-month findings from the study during an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research. The 3-month findings from the study were reported as a poster.

If the drug demonstrates efficacy and safety in larger phase 3 trials, it could be the first oral bone-building (anabolic) therapy for osteoporosis.

Clifford J. Rosen, MD, PhD, who was not involved with the research, told this news organization: “I think this is an intriguing study.” The most likely patients for oral PTH, he added, “are those that have osteoporosis, previous fracture, or very low BMD, particularly those unlikely or unwilling to take bisphosphonates.”

However, “this is very early in the process before this drug could come to market,” cautioned Dr. Rosen, who is director of the Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Maine Medical Research Institute, Scarborough.

“Much more data on efficacy are required at 12 and 24 months for phase 2, and then a full phase 3 [clinical trial] with high-risk fracture patients,” he said.

The company is seeking input from the Food and Drug Administration to develop the protocol for a phase 3 trial. They expect to start this trial in 2022 at sites in the United States, Europe, and Israel, Dr. Santora said.
 

Primary outcome met

The study randomly assigned 161 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or low BMD to receive placebo or the investigational oral PTH for 6 months.

Compared with women who received placebo, those who received the study drug experienced a significantly greater increase in the bone formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) from baseline to 3 months, thereby meeting the study’s primary outcome.

In secondary outcomes, women who received the 2.5-mg/d dose experienced a similar 6-month increase in BMD at the spine and greater increases in BMD at the total hip and femoral neck than those who received injectable teriparatide, Dr. Santora reported.

“The study’s key takeaway is that a once-daily oral PTH [tablet] has the potential to produce the same BMD effects as subcutaneous injections of PTH,” he said in an interview.

Additionally, “the drug was well tolerated when the dose was titrated by adding additional tablets, which suggests that the dose can be tailored to each patient,” he said.
 

Other study findings

Injectable teriparatide reduces the risk for vertebral fractures by up to 80%, Dr. Santora noted, but the fact that the drug must be administered by injection may deter some older patients from using it.

The company developed an oral form of biosynthetic human PTH with a proprietary drug delivery.

The researchers conducted the phase 2 study at four sites in Israel between June 2019 and May 2021. They enrolled women aged 50 years and older who had entered menopause at least 3 years earlier and who had osteoporosis or low BMD.

Forty-three women received placebo, and the others received oral PTH at doses of 0.5 mg/d (n = 25), 1.0 mg/d (n = 29), 1.5 mg/d (n = 28), 2.5 mg/d (n = 19), or at a dose that was titrated up to 2.5 mg/d starting at 1.5 mg/d for month 1, then 2 mg/d for month 2, and then 2.5 mg/d for months 3 to 6 (n = 17).

The mean age of the patients was 61 years, the mean body mass index was 25-27 kg/m², and the mean T score at the spine of –2.2 to –2.45.

Among the women who received 2.5 mg/d of oral PTH for the full 6 months, serum levels of the bone resorption marker C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) decreased 21% from baseline to 6 months, and serum levels of P1NP increased at month 1 and then decreased to baseline by month 6.

The women who received 2.5 mg/d of oral PTH for the full 6 months also demonstrated significantly greater increases in BMD at the lumbar spine (3.8%), total hip (1.4%), and femoral neck (2.4%), compared with women who received placebo.

The safety profile of oral PTH was consistent with that of subcutaneous PTH. Patients experienced headache, nausea, presyncope, and dizziness; there were no treatment-emergent hypercalcemia adverse events.
 

A few ‘unexpected findings’

Suzanne M. Jan De Beur, MD, outgoing ASBMR president, said, “Oral PTH appeared to increase BMD by [dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry] at the lumbar spine effectively and to a similar degree as teriparatide in previous studies.”

She identified two unexpected findings.

“There were increases in BMD by DXA at the femoral neck and total hip at 6 months that were [greater than those] seen in previous trials of teriparatide. Second, markers of bone resorption (CTX) decreased at 6 months, and this is in stark contrast to the increases observed with teriparatide treatment,” she noted in an interview.

Dr. Rosen also noted that “the decrease in CTX is very unusual for PTH and difficult to explain.” He added: “P1NP, a marker of bone formation, was not increased.”

Dr. Jan de Beur continued: “Teriparatide (PTH1-34) and abaloparatide are effective anabolic agents that we use to treat patients with high risk of osteoporotic fracture. Although effective, the burden of daily subcutaneous injection can be a barrier for older individuals, those with poor dexterity, and those that are averse to self-injection.

“Taken together, these results appear promising, that oral PTH may prove to be an effective anabolic agent for osteoporosis treatment,” she summarized.

She stressed that a larger phase 3 study is needed to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

The study was funded by Entera Bio. Dr. Santora is chief medical officer of Entera Bio.

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

An investigational oral form of parathyroid hormone (PTH 1-34), EB 613 (Entera Bio) met its primary efficacy outcome in a phase 2 dosing study involving postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density (BMD).

The adverse effect profile of the drug was similar to that of the injectable PTH 1-34 teriparatide (Forteo), which is approved for osteoporosis.

Arthur C. Santora, MD, chief medical officer, Entera Bio, presented 6-month findings from the study during an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research. The 3-month findings from the study were reported as a poster.

If the drug demonstrates efficacy and safety in larger phase 3 trials, it could be the first oral bone-building (anabolic) therapy for osteoporosis.

Clifford J. Rosen, MD, PhD, who was not involved with the research, told this news organization: “I think this is an intriguing study.” The most likely patients for oral PTH, he added, “are those that have osteoporosis, previous fracture, or very low BMD, particularly those unlikely or unwilling to take bisphosphonates.”

However, “this is very early in the process before this drug could come to market,” cautioned Dr. Rosen, who is director of the Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Maine Medical Research Institute, Scarborough.

“Much more data on efficacy are required at 12 and 24 months for phase 2, and then a full phase 3 [clinical trial] with high-risk fracture patients,” he said.

The company is seeking input from the Food and Drug Administration to develop the protocol for a phase 3 trial. They expect to start this trial in 2022 at sites in the United States, Europe, and Israel, Dr. Santora said.
 

Primary outcome met

The study randomly assigned 161 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or low BMD to receive placebo or the investigational oral PTH for 6 months.

Compared with women who received placebo, those who received the study drug experienced a significantly greater increase in the bone formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) from baseline to 3 months, thereby meeting the study’s primary outcome.

In secondary outcomes, women who received the 2.5-mg/d dose experienced a similar 6-month increase in BMD at the spine and greater increases in BMD at the total hip and femoral neck than those who received injectable teriparatide, Dr. Santora reported.

“The study’s key takeaway is that a once-daily oral PTH [tablet] has the potential to produce the same BMD effects as subcutaneous injections of PTH,” he said in an interview.

Additionally, “the drug was well tolerated when the dose was titrated by adding additional tablets, which suggests that the dose can be tailored to each patient,” he said.
 

Other study findings

Injectable teriparatide reduces the risk for vertebral fractures by up to 80%, Dr. Santora noted, but the fact that the drug must be administered by injection may deter some older patients from using it.

The company developed an oral form of biosynthetic human PTH with a proprietary drug delivery.

The researchers conducted the phase 2 study at four sites in Israel between June 2019 and May 2021. They enrolled women aged 50 years and older who had entered menopause at least 3 years earlier and who had osteoporosis or low BMD.

Forty-three women received placebo, and the others received oral PTH at doses of 0.5 mg/d (n = 25), 1.0 mg/d (n = 29), 1.5 mg/d (n = 28), 2.5 mg/d (n = 19), or at a dose that was titrated up to 2.5 mg/d starting at 1.5 mg/d for month 1, then 2 mg/d for month 2, and then 2.5 mg/d for months 3 to 6 (n = 17).

The mean age of the patients was 61 years, the mean body mass index was 25-27 kg/m², and the mean T score at the spine of –2.2 to –2.45.

Among the women who received 2.5 mg/d of oral PTH for the full 6 months, serum levels of the bone resorption marker C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) decreased 21% from baseline to 6 months, and serum levels of P1NP increased at month 1 and then decreased to baseline by month 6.

The women who received 2.5 mg/d of oral PTH for the full 6 months also demonstrated significantly greater increases in BMD at the lumbar spine (3.8%), total hip (1.4%), and femoral neck (2.4%), compared with women who received placebo.

The safety profile of oral PTH was consistent with that of subcutaneous PTH. Patients experienced headache, nausea, presyncope, and dizziness; there were no treatment-emergent hypercalcemia adverse events.
 

A few ‘unexpected findings’

Suzanne M. Jan De Beur, MD, outgoing ASBMR president, said, “Oral PTH appeared to increase BMD by [dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry] at the lumbar spine effectively and to a similar degree as teriparatide in previous studies.”

She identified two unexpected findings.

“There were increases in BMD by DXA at the femoral neck and total hip at 6 months that were [greater than those] seen in previous trials of teriparatide. Second, markers of bone resorption (CTX) decreased at 6 months, and this is in stark contrast to the increases observed with teriparatide treatment,” she noted in an interview.

Dr. Rosen also noted that “the decrease in CTX is very unusual for PTH and difficult to explain.” He added: “P1NP, a marker of bone formation, was not increased.”

Dr. Jan de Beur continued: “Teriparatide (PTH1-34) and abaloparatide are effective anabolic agents that we use to treat patients with high risk of osteoporotic fracture. Although effective, the burden of daily subcutaneous injection can be a barrier for older individuals, those with poor dexterity, and those that are averse to self-injection.

“Taken together, these results appear promising, that oral PTH may prove to be an effective anabolic agent for osteoporosis treatment,” she summarized.

She stressed that a larger phase 3 study is needed to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

The study was funded by Entera Bio. Dr. Santora is chief medical officer of Entera Bio.

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

The prevalence of homicide was 16% higher in pregnant women or postpartum women than nonpregnant or nonpostpartum women in the United States, according to 2018 and 2019 mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Homicide has long been identified as a leading cause of death during pregnancy, but homicide is not counted in estimates of maternal mortality, nor is it emphasized as a target for prevention and intervention, wrote Maeve Wallace, PhD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues.

Data on maternal mortality (defined as “death while pregnant or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy from causes related to or aggravated by pregnancy”) were limited until the addition of pregnancy to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Death in 2003; all 50 states had adopted it by 2018, the researchers noted.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers analyzed the first 2 years of nationally available data to identify pregnancy-associated mortality and characterize other risk factors such as age and race.

The researchers identified 4,705 female homicides in 2018 and 2019. Of these, 273 (5.8%) occurred in women who were pregnant or within a year of the end of pregnancy. Approximately half (50.2%) of the pregnant or postpartum victims were non-Hispanic Black, 30% were non-Hispanic white, 9.5% were Hispanic, and 10.3% were other races; approximately one-third (35.5%) were in the 20- to 24-year age group.

Overall, the ratio was 3.62 homicides per 100,000 live births among females who were either pregnant or within 1 year post partum, compared to 3.12 homicides per 100,000 live births in nonpregnant, nonpostpartum females aged 10-44 years (P = .05).

“Patterns were similar in further stratification by both race and age such that pregnancy was associated with more than a doubled risk of homicide among girls and women aged 10–24 in both the non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black populations,” the researchers wrote.

The findings are consistent with previous studies, which “implicates health and social system failures. Although we are unable to directly evaluate the involvement of intimate partner violence (IPV) in this report, we did find that a majority of pregnancy-associated homicides occurred in the home, implicating the likelihood of involvement by persons known to the victim,” they noted. In addition, the data showed that approximately 70% of the incidents of homicide in pregnant and postpartum women involved a firearm, an increase over previous estimates.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of circumstantial information and incomplete data on victim characteristics, the researchers noted. Other key limitations included the potential for false-positives and false-negatives when recording pregnancy status, which could lead to underestimates of pregnancy-associated homicides, and the lack of data on pregnancy outcomes for women who experienced live birth, abortion, or miscarriage within a year of death.

However, the results highlight the need for increased awareness and training of physicians in completing the pregnancy checkbox on death certificates, and the need for action on recommendations and interventions to prevent maternal deaths from homicide, they emphasized.

“Although encouraging, a commitment to the actual implementation of policies and investments known to be effective at protecting and the promoting the health and safety of girls and women must follow,” they concluded.
 

Data highlight disparities

“This study could not be done effectively prior to now, as the adoption of the pregnancy checkbox on the U.S. Standard Certificate of Death was only available in all 50 states as of 2018,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

“This study also demonstrates what was already known, which is that pregnancy is a high-risk time period for intimate partner violence, including homicide. The differences in homicide rates based on race and ethnicity also highlight the clear disparities in maternal mortality in the U.S. that are attributable to racism. There is more attention being paid to maternal mortality and the differential experience based on race, and this demonstrates that simply addressing medical management during pregnancy is not enough – we need to address root causes of racism if we truly want to reduce maternal mortality,” Dr. Prager said. 

“The primary take-home message for clinicians is to ascertain safety from every patient, and to try to reduce the impacts of racism on health care for patients, especially during pregnancy,” she said. 

Although more detailed records would help with elucidating causes versus associations, “more research is not the answer,” Dr. Prager stated. “The real solution here is to have better gun safety laws, and to put significant resources toward reducing the impacts of racism on health care and our society.”

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.

The prevalence of homicide was 16% higher in pregnant women or postpartum women than nonpregnant or nonpostpartum women in the United States, according to 2018 and 2019 mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Homicide has long been identified as a leading cause of death during pregnancy, but homicide is not counted in estimates of maternal mortality, nor is it emphasized as a target for prevention and intervention, wrote Maeve Wallace, PhD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues.

Data on maternal mortality (defined as “death while pregnant or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy from causes related to or aggravated by pregnancy”) were limited until the addition of pregnancy to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Death in 2003; all 50 states had adopted it by 2018, the researchers noted.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers analyzed the first 2 years of nationally available data to identify pregnancy-associated mortality and characterize other risk factors such as age and race.

The researchers identified 4,705 female homicides in 2018 and 2019. Of these, 273 (5.8%) occurred in women who were pregnant or within a year of the end of pregnancy. Approximately half (50.2%) of the pregnant or postpartum victims were non-Hispanic Black, 30% were non-Hispanic white, 9.5% were Hispanic, and 10.3% were other races; approximately one-third (35.5%) were in the 20- to 24-year age group.

Overall, the ratio was 3.62 homicides per 100,000 live births among females who were either pregnant or within 1 year post partum, compared to 3.12 homicides per 100,000 live births in nonpregnant, nonpostpartum females aged 10-44 years (P = .05).

“Patterns were similar in further stratification by both race and age such that pregnancy was associated with more than a doubled risk of homicide among girls and women aged 10–24 in both the non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black populations,” the researchers wrote.

The findings are consistent with previous studies, which “implicates health and social system failures. Although we are unable to directly evaluate the involvement of intimate partner violence (IPV) in this report, we did find that a majority of pregnancy-associated homicides occurred in the home, implicating the likelihood of involvement by persons known to the victim,” they noted. In addition, the data showed that approximately 70% of the incidents of homicide in pregnant and postpartum women involved a firearm, an increase over previous estimates.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of circumstantial information and incomplete data on victim characteristics, the researchers noted. Other key limitations included the potential for false-positives and false-negatives when recording pregnancy status, which could lead to underestimates of pregnancy-associated homicides, and the lack of data on pregnancy outcomes for women who experienced live birth, abortion, or miscarriage within a year of death.

However, the results highlight the need for increased awareness and training of physicians in completing the pregnancy checkbox on death certificates, and the need for action on recommendations and interventions to prevent maternal deaths from homicide, they emphasized.

“Although encouraging, a commitment to the actual implementation of policies and investments known to be effective at protecting and the promoting the health and safety of girls and women must follow,” they concluded.
 

Data highlight disparities

“This study could not be done effectively prior to now, as the adoption of the pregnancy checkbox on the U.S. Standard Certificate of Death was only available in all 50 states as of 2018,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

“This study also demonstrates what was already known, which is that pregnancy is a high-risk time period for intimate partner violence, including homicide. The differences in homicide rates based on race and ethnicity also highlight the clear disparities in maternal mortality in the U.S. that are attributable to racism. There is more attention being paid to maternal mortality and the differential experience based on race, and this demonstrates that simply addressing medical management during pregnancy is not enough – we need to address root causes of racism if we truly want to reduce maternal mortality,” Dr. Prager said. 

“The primary take-home message for clinicians is to ascertain safety from every patient, and to try to reduce the impacts of racism on health care for patients, especially during pregnancy,” she said. 

Although more detailed records would help with elucidating causes versus associations, “more research is not the answer,” Dr. Prager stated. “The real solution here is to have better gun safety laws, and to put significant resources toward reducing the impacts of racism on health care and our society.”

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.

The prevalence of homicide was 16% higher in pregnant women or postpartum women than nonpregnant or nonpostpartum women in the United States, according to 2018 and 2019 mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Homicide has long been identified as a leading cause of death during pregnancy, but homicide is not counted in estimates of maternal mortality, nor is it emphasized as a target for prevention and intervention, wrote Maeve Wallace, PhD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues.

Data on maternal mortality (defined as “death while pregnant or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy from causes related to or aggravated by pregnancy”) were limited until the addition of pregnancy to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Death in 2003; all 50 states had adopted it by 2018, the researchers noted.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers analyzed the first 2 years of nationally available data to identify pregnancy-associated mortality and characterize other risk factors such as age and race.

The researchers identified 4,705 female homicides in 2018 and 2019. Of these, 273 (5.8%) occurred in women who were pregnant or within a year of the end of pregnancy. Approximately half (50.2%) of the pregnant or postpartum victims were non-Hispanic Black, 30% were non-Hispanic white, 9.5% were Hispanic, and 10.3% were other races; approximately one-third (35.5%) were in the 20- to 24-year age group.

Overall, the ratio was 3.62 homicides per 100,000 live births among females who were either pregnant or within 1 year post partum, compared to 3.12 homicides per 100,000 live births in nonpregnant, nonpostpartum females aged 10-44 years (P = .05).

“Patterns were similar in further stratification by both race and age such that pregnancy was associated with more than a doubled risk of homicide among girls and women aged 10–24 in both the non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black populations,” the researchers wrote.

The findings are consistent with previous studies, which “implicates health and social system failures. Although we are unable to directly evaluate the involvement of intimate partner violence (IPV) in this report, we did find that a majority of pregnancy-associated homicides occurred in the home, implicating the likelihood of involvement by persons known to the victim,” they noted. In addition, the data showed that approximately 70% of the incidents of homicide in pregnant and postpartum women involved a firearm, an increase over previous estimates.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of circumstantial information and incomplete data on victim characteristics, the researchers noted. Other key limitations included the potential for false-positives and false-negatives when recording pregnancy status, which could lead to underestimates of pregnancy-associated homicides, and the lack of data on pregnancy outcomes for women who experienced live birth, abortion, or miscarriage within a year of death.

However, the results highlight the need for increased awareness and training of physicians in completing the pregnancy checkbox on death certificates, and the need for action on recommendations and interventions to prevent maternal deaths from homicide, they emphasized.

“Although encouraging, a commitment to the actual implementation of policies and investments known to be effective at protecting and the promoting the health and safety of girls and women must follow,” they concluded.
 

Data highlight disparities

“This study could not be done effectively prior to now, as the adoption of the pregnancy checkbox on the U.S. Standard Certificate of Death was only available in all 50 states as of 2018,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

“This study also demonstrates what was already known, which is that pregnancy is a high-risk time period for intimate partner violence, including homicide. The differences in homicide rates based on race and ethnicity also highlight the clear disparities in maternal mortality in the U.S. that are attributable to racism. There is more attention being paid to maternal mortality and the differential experience based on race, and this demonstrates that simply addressing medical management during pregnancy is not enough – we need to address root causes of racism if we truly want to reduce maternal mortality,” Dr. Prager said. 

“The primary take-home message for clinicians is to ascertain safety from every patient, and to try to reduce the impacts of racism on health care for patients, especially during pregnancy,” she said. 

Although more detailed records would help with elucidating causes versus associations, “more research is not the answer,” Dr. Prager stated. “The real solution here is to have better gun safety laws, and to put significant resources toward reducing the impacts of racism on health care and our society.”

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.