Women's Health

Reassuring news for women who receive a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy: Pregnancy-induced alterations in the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapy do not appear to compromise outcomes for the mother.

That’s according to investigators who reviewed registry data on 662 pregnant women and 2,081 nonpregnant women with a diagnosis of breast cancer. After a median follow-up of 66 months, there were no significant differences in either disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS), and women who received more than 60% of their chemotherapy doses during pregnancy had survival comparable to that of nonpregnant women, reported Frédéric Amant, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium).

“These results support initiation of chemotherapy for breast cancer during pregnancy where indicated for oncological reasons,” they reported in a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. (Abstract 515).

Although in general a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy does not appear to affect the mother’s prognosis when standard therapy is used, “caution is warranted as gestational changes in pharmacokinetics with respect to the distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs may lead to reduced chemotherapy concentration in pregnant patients,” the authors wrote.

To get a better picture of the prognosis for women diagnosed with breast cancer during pregnancy, the investigators created a cohort of patients from two multicenter registries: the International Network of Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy and the German Breast Group. Both registries collect data retrospectively and prospectively,

They used propensity scoring to smooth out differences in the baseline characteristics of pregnant women and nonpregnant controls.

The median age at diagnosis was 34 year for pregnant women, and 38 years for controls. Pregnant women were more likely than were controls to have stage II disease (60.1% vs. 56, 1%, P = .035), grade 3 tumors (74% vs. 62.2%, P < .001), hormone receptor–negative breast tumors (48.4% vs. 30%), and triple-negative breast cancer (38.9% vs. 26.9%, P < .001).

In Cox proportional hazard regression analysis controlling for age, stage, grade, hormone receptor status, HER2 status and histology, there were no significant differences between pregnant women and controls in either DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, P = .83) or OS (HR 1.08, P = .57).

As noted before, a subgroup analysis of 339 women who received more than 60% of their assigned chemotherapy doses during pregnancy also showed that survival was not significantly different from that of nonpregnant women (HR for DFS 0,71, P = .13; HR for OS 0.85, P = .39).
 

Termination does not benefit the mother

“Thanks to the important work of Dr. Amant in the INCIP [International Network on Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy] network and others around the world, we now have sufficient data to know that it’s safe to treat breast cancer during pregnancy, and that the prognosis of breast cancer during pregnancy is comparable to nonpregnant controls if we adjust for certain characteristics such as age and others,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, Portugal, the invited discussant.

­­“With this and other studies, we can come to the conclusion that pregnancy-induced alterations in the chemotherapy concentration due to altered pharmacokinetics does not seem to affect maternal prognosis, and therefore we should initiate treatment of breast cancer during wherever it’s indicated for oncological reasons, knowing that you can only use chemotherapy during the second or third trimester,” she said.

Dr. Cardoso emphasized that breast cancer during pregnancy is a rare situation requiring that treatment be given in a specialized center by an experienced multidisciplinary team, and that interrupting the pregnancy does not improve the mother’s prognosis.

“We have to spread the word to all health professionals who come across these women to stop advising them to immediately terminate pregnancy. For the children, the most important take-home message is avoid prematurely delivery,” she said.

Treatment for women with a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy should be similar to that for nonpregnant women, with the exception of endocrine therapy and anti-HER2 agents, which should be withheld until after delivery, she added.

The study was supported by the European Research Council, Research Foundation Flanders, and Kom op tegen kanker (Stand Up to Cancer). Dr. Amant disclosed a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca and Clovis Oncology. Dr. Cardoso disclosed consulting or advisory roles and travel support from multiple companies.

Reassuring news for women who receive a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy: Pregnancy-induced alterations in the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapy do not appear to compromise outcomes for the mother.

That’s according to investigators who reviewed registry data on 662 pregnant women and 2,081 nonpregnant women with a diagnosis of breast cancer. After a median follow-up of 66 months, there were no significant differences in either disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS), and women who received more than 60% of their chemotherapy doses during pregnancy had survival comparable to that of nonpregnant women, reported Frédéric Amant, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium).

“These results support initiation of chemotherapy for breast cancer during pregnancy where indicated for oncological reasons,” they reported in a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. (Abstract 515).

Although in general a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy does not appear to affect the mother’s prognosis when standard therapy is used, “caution is warranted as gestational changes in pharmacokinetics with respect to the distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs may lead to reduced chemotherapy concentration in pregnant patients,” the authors wrote.

To get a better picture of the prognosis for women diagnosed with breast cancer during pregnancy, the investigators created a cohort of patients from two multicenter registries: the International Network of Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy and the German Breast Group. Both registries collect data retrospectively and prospectively,

They used propensity scoring to smooth out differences in the baseline characteristics of pregnant women and nonpregnant controls.

The median age at diagnosis was 34 year for pregnant women, and 38 years for controls. Pregnant women were more likely than were controls to have stage II disease (60.1% vs. 56, 1%, P = .035), grade 3 tumors (74% vs. 62.2%, P < .001), hormone receptor–negative breast tumors (48.4% vs. 30%), and triple-negative breast cancer (38.9% vs. 26.9%, P < .001).

In Cox proportional hazard regression analysis controlling for age, stage, grade, hormone receptor status, HER2 status and histology, there were no significant differences between pregnant women and controls in either DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, P = .83) or OS (HR 1.08, P = .57).

As noted before, a subgroup analysis of 339 women who received more than 60% of their assigned chemotherapy doses during pregnancy also showed that survival was not significantly different from that of nonpregnant women (HR for DFS 0,71, P = .13; HR for OS 0.85, P = .39).
 

Termination does not benefit the mother

“Thanks to the important work of Dr. Amant in the INCIP [International Network on Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy] network and others around the world, we now have sufficient data to know that it’s safe to treat breast cancer during pregnancy, and that the prognosis of breast cancer during pregnancy is comparable to nonpregnant controls if we adjust for certain characteristics such as age and others,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, Portugal, the invited discussant.

­­“With this and other studies, we can come to the conclusion that pregnancy-induced alterations in the chemotherapy concentration due to altered pharmacokinetics does not seem to affect maternal prognosis, and therefore we should initiate treatment of breast cancer during wherever it’s indicated for oncological reasons, knowing that you can only use chemotherapy during the second or third trimester,” she said.

Dr. Cardoso emphasized that breast cancer during pregnancy is a rare situation requiring that treatment be given in a specialized center by an experienced multidisciplinary team, and that interrupting the pregnancy does not improve the mother’s prognosis.

“We have to spread the word to all health professionals who come across these women to stop advising them to immediately terminate pregnancy. For the children, the most important take-home message is avoid prematurely delivery,” she said.

Treatment for women with a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy should be similar to that for nonpregnant women, with the exception of endocrine therapy and anti-HER2 agents, which should be withheld until after delivery, she added.

The study was supported by the European Research Council, Research Foundation Flanders, and Kom op tegen kanker (Stand Up to Cancer). Dr. Amant disclosed a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca and Clovis Oncology. Dr. Cardoso disclosed consulting or advisory roles and travel support from multiple companies.

Reassuring news for women who receive a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy: Pregnancy-induced alterations in the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapy do not appear to compromise outcomes for the mother.

That’s according to investigators who reviewed registry data on 662 pregnant women and 2,081 nonpregnant women with a diagnosis of breast cancer. After a median follow-up of 66 months, there were no significant differences in either disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS), and women who received more than 60% of their chemotherapy doses during pregnancy had survival comparable to that of nonpregnant women, reported Frédéric Amant, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium).

“These results support initiation of chemotherapy for breast cancer during pregnancy where indicated for oncological reasons,” they reported in a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. (Abstract 515).

Although in general a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy does not appear to affect the mother’s prognosis when standard therapy is used, “caution is warranted as gestational changes in pharmacokinetics with respect to the distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs may lead to reduced chemotherapy concentration in pregnant patients,” the authors wrote.

To get a better picture of the prognosis for women diagnosed with breast cancer during pregnancy, the investigators created a cohort of patients from two multicenter registries: the International Network of Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy and the German Breast Group. Both registries collect data retrospectively and prospectively,

They used propensity scoring to smooth out differences in the baseline characteristics of pregnant women and nonpregnant controls.

The median age at diagnosis was 34 year for pregnant women, and 38 years for controls. Pregnant women were more likely than were controls to have stage II disease (60.1% vs. 56, 1%, P = .035), grade 3 tumors (74% vs. 62.2%, P < .001), hormone receptor–negative breast tumors (48.4% vs. 30%), and triple-negative breast cancer (38.9% vs. 26.9%, P < .001).

In Cox proportional hazard regression analysis controlling for age, stage, grade, hormone receptor status, HER2 status and histology, there were no significant differences between pregnant women and controls in either DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, P = .83) or OS (HR 1.08, P = .57).

As noted before, a subgroup analysis of 339 women who received more than 60% of their assigned chemotherapy doses during pregnancy also showed that survival was not significantly different from that of nonpregnant women (HR for DFS 0,71, P = .13; HR for OS 0.85, P = .39).
 

Termination does not benefit the mother

“Thanks to the important work of Dr. Amant in the INCIP [International Network on Cancer, Infertility, and Pregnancy] network and others around the world, we now have sufficient data to know that it’s safe to treat breast cancer during pregnancy, and that the prognosis of breast cancer during pregnancy is comparable to nonpregnant controls if we adjust for certain characteristics such as age and others,” said Fatima Cardoso, MD, of Champalimaud Clinical Center in Lisbon, Portugal, the invited discussant.

­­“With this and other studies, we can come to the conclusion that pregnancy-induced alterations in the chemotherapy concentration due to altered pharmacokinetics does not seem to affect maternal prognosis, and therefore we should initiate treatment of breast cancer during wherever it’s indicated for oncological reasons, knowing that you can only use chemotherapy during the second or third trimester,” she said.

Dr. Cardoso emphasized that breast cancer during pregnancy is a rare situation requiring that treatment be given in a specialized center by an experienced multidisciplinary team, and that interrupting the pregnancy does not improve the mother’s prognosis.

“We have to spread the word to all health professionals who come across these women to stop advising them to immediately terminate pregnancy. For the children, the most important take-home message is avoid prematurely delivery,” she said.

Treatment for women with a diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy should be similar to that for nonpregnant women, with the exception of endocrine therapy and anti-HER2 agents, which should be withheld until after delivery, she added.

The study was supported by the European Research Council, Research Foundation Flanders, and Kom op tegen kanker (Stand Up to Cancer). Dr. Amant disclosed a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca and Clovis Oncology. Dr. Cardoso disclosed consulting or advisory roles and travel support from multiple companies.

The inflammatory cytokine interleukin 6 may be a biomarker for distant recurrence of breast cancer among patients treated for stage II-III HER2-negative disease, investigators have found.

In a case-control study of 498 women with breast cancer treated with surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as endocrine therapy for women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive tumors, those with higher serum levels of IL-6 at diagnosis had a significantly greater risk for disease recurrence than women with lower levels of the cytokine, Joseph A. Sparano, MD, from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and colleagues reported.

“This analysis provides level 1B evidence indicating that higher levels of the cytokine IL-6 at diagnosis are associated with a significantly higher distant recurrence risk in high-risk stage II-III breast cancer despite optimal adjuvant systemic therapy,” they wrote in a study presented in a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.(Abstract 520)

In an interview, Dr. Sparano said that their findings first need to be validated in a larger study.

“When validated, I think the other key issue is to try to understand what the best cut point for identifying high risk is, “ he said.

If further studies confirm that higher IL-6 levels are prognostic for worse outcomes, it might be possible to use levels of the cytokine as a biomarker to predict for therapies targeting the IL-6/Janus kinase/STAT3 pathway.

“There are trials ongoing testing IL-6 antibodies in combination chemotherapy, and this could be a rational biomarker to identify which patients would be more likely to benefit from that approach,” he said.
 

Systemic inflammation

Systemic inflammation is suspected as a contributing factor to cancer progression and disease recurrence, Dr. Sparano and colleagues noted.

To test their hypothesis that inflammatory cytokines and/or chemokines could be associated with distant recurrence, they conducted a case-control study with 249 matched pairs of patients enrolled in a phase 3 trial of adjuvant chemotherapy for lymph-node positive and high-risk lymph-node negative breast cancer (NCT00433511).

The patients all had surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab, and endocrine therapy for patients whose tumors were ER positive.

They used propensity score matching to pair each patient with distant recurrence to one without, with covariates including post versus premenopausal or perimenopausal status, estrogen and/or progesterone receptor positivity, tumor size (less than 2 cm, greater than 2-5 cm, or greater than 5 cm) nodal status, and grade.

The only biomarker that met the prespecified boundary for statistical significance (P < .0014) was IL-6, with a hazard ratio for distant recurrence of 1.37 (P = .0006).

The median and mean values for IL-6 were 0.95 and 7.5 pg/mL, respectively

Other substances associated with distant recurrence (with a two-sided P value < .05) were macrophage-derived chemokine/CCL22 (HR, 1.90; P = .0098), IL-17A, a T-helper cell inflammatory cytokine (HR, 1.36; P = .0052), and the cytokine vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A, HR, 1.13; P = 0.037).

There was no statistical interaction between VEGF-A levels and the benefit of bevacizumab.
 

Prognostic value, not clinical utility

“This is a nice abstract. It looks at inflammatory cytokines and provides evidence that inflammatory cytokines, particularly IL-6, could have a prognostic role in predicting risk of recurrence in HER2-negative disease, and the team did a very nice job in multivariate analysis looking at different factors,” said Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, from the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, the invited discussant for the study.*

In an interview, Dr. Bardia said that the finding “provides prognostic value, but does not provide clinical utility. It’s unclear if we used this assay and it identified that a patient was at high risk of recurrence whether we could change that. Is there any intervention that could be done to potentially alter the course of disease, alter the natural history? That’s unknown.”

He agreed with Dr. Sparano and colleagues that validation of the finding was still needed, ideally in a prospective or retrospective cohort study.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, Komen Foundation, and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Sparano disclosed relationships with multiple companies. Dr. Bardia disclosed a consulting or advisory role and research funding to his institution from multiple companies.

*Correction, 6/4/21: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Bardia's name.

The inflammatory cytokine interleukin 6 may be a biomarker for distant recurrence of breast cancer among patients treated for stage II-III HER2-negative disease, investigators have found.

In a case-control study of 498 women with breast cancer treated with surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as endocrine therapy for women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive tumors, those with higher serum levels of IL-6 at diagnosis had a significantly greater risk for disease recurrence than women with lower levels of the cytokine, Joseph A. Sparano, MD, from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and colleagues reported.

“This analysis provides level 1B evidence indicating that higher levels of the cytokine IL-6 at diagnosis are associated with a significantly higher distant recurrence risk in high-risk stage II-III breast cancer despite optimal adjuvant systemic therapy,” they wrote in a study presented in a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.(Abstract 520)

In an interview, Dr. Sparano said that their findings first need to be validated in a larger study.

“When validated, I think the other key issue is to try to understand what the best cut point for identifying high risk is, “ he said.

If further studies confirm that higher IL-6 levels are prognostic for worse outcomes, it might be possible to use levels of the cytokine as a biomarker to predict for therapies targeting the IL-6/Janus kinase/STAT3 pathway.

“There are trials ongoing testing IL-6 antibodies in combination chemotherapy, and this could be a rational biomarker to identify which patients would be more likely to benefit from that approach,” he said.
 

Systemic inflammation

Systemic inflammation is suspected as a contributing factor to cancer progression and disease recurrence, Dr. Sparano and colleagues noted.

To test their hypothesis that inflammatory cytokines and/or chemokines could be associated with distant recurrence, they conducted a case-control study with 249 matched pairs of patients enrolled in a phase 3 trial of adjuvant chemotherapy for lymph-node positive and high-risk lymph-node negative breast cancer (NCT00433511).

The patients all had surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab, and endocrine therapy for patients whose tumors were ER positive.

They used propensity score matching to pair each patient with distant recurrence to one without, with covariates including post versus premenopausal or perimenopausal status, estrogen and/or progesterone receptor positivity, tumor size (less than 2 cm, greater than 2-5 cm, or greater than 5 cm) nodal status, and grade.

The only biomarker that met the prespecified boundary for statistical significance (P < .0014) was IL-6, with a hazard ratio for distant recurrence of 1.37 (P = .0006).

The median and mean values for IL-6 were 0.95 and 7.5 pg/mL, respectively

Other substances associated with distant recurrence (with a two-sided P value < .05) were macrophage-derived chemokine/CCL22 (HR, 1.90; P = .0098), IL-17A, a T-helper cell inflammatory cytokine (HR, 1.36; P = .0052), and the cytokine vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A, HR, 1.13; P = 0.037).

There was no statistical interaction between VEGF-A levels and the benefit of bevacizumab.
 

Prognostic value, not clinical utility

“This is a nice abstract. It looks at inflammatory cytokines and provides evidence that inflammatory cytokines, particularly IL-6, could have a prognostic role in predicting risk of recurrence in HER2-negative disease, and the team did a very nice job in multivariate analysis looking at different factors,” said Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, from the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, the invited discussant for the study.*

In an interview, Dr. Bardia said that the finding “provides prognostic value, but does not provide clinical utility. It’s unclear if we used this assay and it identified that a patient was at high risk of recurrence whether we could change that. Is there any intervention that could be done to potentially alter the course of disease, alter the natural history? That’s unknown.”

He agreed with Dr. Sparano and colleagues that validation of the finding was still needed, ideally in a prospective or retrospective cohort study.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, Komen Foundation, and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Sparano disclosed relationships with multiple companies. Dr. Bardia disclosed a consulting or advisory role and research funding to his institution from multiple companies.

*Correction, 6/4/21: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Bardia's name.

The inflammatory cytokine interleukin 6 may be a biomarker for distant recurrence of breast cancer among patients treated for stage II-III HER2-negative disease, investigators have found.

In a case-control study of 498 women with breast cancer treated with surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as endocrine therapy for women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive tumors, those with higher serum levels of IL-6 at diagnosis had a significantly greater risk for disease recurrence than women with lower levels of the cytokine, Joseph A. Sparano, MD, from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, New York, and colleagues reported.

“This analysis provides level 1B evidence indicating that higher levels of the cytokine IL-6 at diagnosis are associated with a significantly higher distant recurrence risk in high-risk stage II-III breast cancer despite optimal adjuvant systemic therapy,” they wrote in a study presented in a poster discussion session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.(Abstract 520)

In an interview, Dr. Sparano said that their findings first need to be validated in a larger study.

“When validated, I think the other key issue is to try to understand what the best cut point for identifying high risk is, “ he said.

If further studies confirm that higher IL-6 levels are prognostic for worse outcomes, it might be possible to use levels of the cytokine as a biomarker to predict for therapies targeting the IL-6/Janus kinase/STAT3 pathway.

“There are trials ongoing testing IL-6 antibodies in combination chemotherapy, and this could be a rational biomarker to identify which patients would be more likely to benefit from that approach,” he said.
 

Systemic inflammation

Systemic inflammation is suspected as a contributing factor to cancer progression and disease recurrence, Dr. Sparano and colleagues noted.

To test their hypothesis that inflammatory cytokines and/or chemokines could be associated with distant recurrence, they conducted a case-control study with 249 matched pairs of patients enrolled in a phase 3 trial of adjuvant chemotherapy for lymph-node positive and high-risk lymph-node negative breast cancer (NCT00433511).

The patients all had surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab, and endocrine therapy for patients whose tumors were ER positive.

They used propensity score matching to pair each patient with distant recurrence to one without, with covariates including post versus premenopausal or perimenopausal status, estrogen and/or progesterone receptor positivity, tumor size (less than 2 cm, greater than 2-5 cm, or greater than 5 cm) nodal status, and grade.

The only biomarker that met the prespecified boundary for statistical significance (P < .0014) was IL-6, with a hazard ratio for distant recurrence of 1.37 (P = .0006).

The median and mean values for IL-6 were 0.95 and 7.5 pg/mL, respectively

Other substances associated with distant recurrence (with a two-sided P value < .05) were macrophage-derived chemokine/CCL22 (HR, 1.90; P = .0098), IL-17A, a T-helper cell inflammatory cytokine (HR, 1.36; P = .0052), and the cytokine vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A, HR, 1.13; P = 0.037).

There was no statistical interaction between VEGF-A levels and the benefit of bevacizumab.
 

Prognostic value, not clinical utility

“This is a nice abstract. It looks at inflammatory cytokines and provides evidence that inflammatory cytokines, particularly IL-6, could have a prognostic role in predicting risk of recurrence in HER2-negative disease, and the team did a very nice job in multivariate analysis looking at different factors,” said Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, from the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, the invited discussant for the study.*

In an interview, Dr. Bardia said that the finding “provides prognostic value, but does not provide clinical utility. It’s unclear if we used this assay and it identified that a patient was at high risk of recurrence whether we could change that. Is there any intervention that could be done to potentially alter the course of disease, alter the natural history? That’s unknown.”

He agreed with Dr. Sparano and colleagues that validation of the finding was still needed, ideally in a prospective or retrospective cohort study.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, Komen Foundation, and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Sparano disclosed relationships with multiple companies. Dr. Bardia disclosed a consulting or advisory role and research funding to his institution from multiple companies.

*Correction, 6/4/21: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Bardia's name.

Black patients experienced more moderate to severe violent trauma during pregnancy than did non-Black patients at a single Baltimore institution, according to a small retrospective cohort study presented in a poster at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Trauma is the leading nonobstetric cause of death in pregnant women,” and Black communities are at a disproportionately greater risk of trauma, Rebecca H. Jessel, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and associates wrote in their poster.

The study’s findings raise research questions that need more exploration, according to Neel Shah, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and founding director of the Delivery Decisions Initiative at Harvard’s Ariadne Labs.

“This is an interesting study that opens a line of inquiry into how trauma may impact the pregnancies of those who are Black differently,” Dr. Shah, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “The observed disparity is consistent with the racial inequities in outcomes we see across obstetric outcomes and requires further research into the causes and solutions.”

The researchers retrospectively reviewed all pregnant patients treated between 2015 and 2018 at the University of Maryland’s R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore. In addition to maternal demographics, details about the delivery, and perinatal outcomes, the researchers noted whether the trauma was violent, such as assault, or nonviolent, such as motor vehicle accidents. Moderate to severe trauma was defined as an injury severity score of at least 9.

Among 3,536 women aged 15-49 treated at the shock trauma center, 62 were pregnant, and 71% of these women were Black. Nineteen percent were White patients, 5% were Asian patients, and 5% were of a different race/ethnicity. Black patients were, on average, 27 years old at the time of the trauma. Non-Black patients were, on average, 25 years old. The average gestational age at the time of trauma was 25 weeks, 3 days in Black women and 23 weeks, 4 days in non-Black women.

The most common cause of trauma was a car accident, implicated in 56% of the trauma cases. Assault was the next most common cause of trauma, making up nearly a quarter (23%) of cases. The other injuries came from accidents (16%) or inhalation (5%). The average injury severity score was 4.7, with a mild injury for 76% of patients and a moderate to severe injury in 24%.

The researchers then compared the mechanisms and severity of injuries between Black and non-Black patients. The severity of trauma was similar between the two groups: Seventy-five percent of Black patients and 78% of non-Black patients had mild trauma with injury severity scores below 9. However, assault or another violent form of trauma was more likely to occur to Black patients than to non-Black patients. More than a quarter (27%) of Black patients experienced violent trauma, compared to 11% of non-Black patients.

“It is very notable that among pregnant people who experience trauma, obstetric complications leading to preterm delivery were observed much more often for those who are Black,” Dr. Shah said. “A case series to understand the underlying causes could be very valuable.”

Black patients delivered an average 59 days (8 weeks, 3 days) after the trauma compared to an average 83 days (11 weeks, 6 days) for non-Black patients, but the difference was not statistically significant. However, preterm birth was more likely in non-Black patients (83%) than in Black patients (78%). A similar proportion of deliveries were preterm in Black (57%) and non-Black (56%) patients.

Though the poster did not show the data, the researchers wrote that Black women who experienced moderate to severe trauma after 24 weeks’ gestational age either had a preterm birth or a fetal demise.

Though the study findings warrant deeper investigation, the study has substantial limitations.

“It is challenging to generalize from this study because the sample size is small and it is from a single institution,” Dr. Shah said. “It does not appear to be adequately powered to draw statistically significant conclusions. In particular, the data are not adequate to support the authors’ statement that Black people are more likely to experience the forms of described trauma generally.”

The authors and Dr. Shah reported no disclosures.

Black patients experienced more moderate to severe violent trauma during pregnancy than did non-Black patients at a single Baltimore institution, according to a small retrospective cohort study presented in a poster at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Trauma is the leading nonobstetric cause of death in pregnant women,” and Black communities are at a disproportionately greater risk of trauma, Rebecca H. Jessel, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and associates wrote in their poster.

The study’s findings raise research questions that need more exploration, according to Neel Shah, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and founding director of the Delivery Decisions Initiative at Harvard’s Ariadne Labs.

“This is an interesting study that opens a line of inquiry into how trauma may impact the pregnancies of those who are Black differently,” Dr. Shah, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “The observed disparity is consistent with the racial inequities in outcomes we see across obstetric outcomes and requires further research into the causes and solutions.”

The researchers retrospectively reviewed all pregnant patients treated between 2015 and 2018 at the University of Maryland’s R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore. In addition to maternal demographics, details about the delivery, and perinatal outcomes, the researchers noted whether the trauma was violent, such as assault, or nonviolent, such as motor vehicle accidents. Moderate to severe trauma was defined as an injury severity score of at least 9.

Among 3,536 women aged 15-49 treated at the shock trauma center, 62 were pregnant, and 71% of these women were Black. Nineteen percent were White patients, 5% were Asian patients, and 5% were of a different race/ethnicity. Black patients were, on average, 27 years old at the time of the trauma. Non-Black patients were, on average, 25 years old. The average gestational age at the time of trauma was 25 weeks, 3 days in Black women and 23 weeks, 4 days in non-Black women.

The most common cause of trauma was a car accident, implicated in 56% of the trauma cases. Assault was the next most common cause of trauma, making up nearly a quarter (23%) of cases. The other injuries came from accidents (16%) or inhalation (5%). The average injury severity score was 4.7, with a mild injury for 76% of patients and a moderate to severe injury in 24%.

The researchers then compared the mechanisms and severity of injuries between Black and non-Black patients. The severity of trauma was similar between the two groups: Seventy-five percent of Black patients and 78% of non-Black patients had mild trauma with injury severity scores below 9. However, assault or another violent form of trauma was more likely to occur to Black patients than to non-Black patients. More than a quarter (27%) of Black patients experienced violent trauma, compared to 11% of non-Black patients.

“It is very notable that among pregnant people who experience trauma, obstetric complications leading to preterm delivery were observed much more often for those who are Black,” Dr. Shah said. “A case series to understand the underlying causes could be very valuable.”

Black patients delivered an average 59 days (8 weeks, 3 days) after the trauma compared to an average 83 days (11 weeks, 6 days) for non-Black patients, but the difference was not statistically significant. However, preterm birth was more likely in non-Black patients (83%) than in Black patients (78%). A similar proportion of deliveries were preterm in Black (57%) and non-Black (56%) patients.

Though the poster did not show the data, the researchers wrote that Black women who experienced moderate to severe trauma after 24 weeks’ gestational age either had a preterm birth or a fetal demise.

Though the study findings warrant deeper investigation, the study has substantial limitations.

“It is challenging to generalize from this study because the sample size is small and it is from a single institution,” Dr. Shah said. “It does not appear to be adequately powered to draw statistically significant conclusions. In particular, the data are not adequate to support the authors’ statement that Black people are more likely to experience the forms of described trauma generally.”

The authors and Dr. Shah reported no disclosures.

Black patients experienced more moderate to severe violent trauma during pregnancy than did non-Black patients at a single Baltimore institution, according to a small retrospective cohort study presented in a poster at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Trauma is the leading nonobstetric cause of death in pregnant women,” and Black communities are at a disproportionately greater risk of trauma, Rebecca H. Jessel, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and associates wrote in their poster.

The study’s findings raise research questions that need more exploration, according to Neel Shah, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and founding director of the Delivery Decisions Initiative at Harvard’s Ariadne Labs.

“This is an interesting study that opens a line of inquiry into how trauma may impact the pregnancies of those who are Black differently,” Dr. Shah, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “The observed disparity is consistent with the racial inequities in outcomes we see across obstetric outcomes and requires further research into the causes and solutions.”

The researchers retrospectively reviewed all pregnant patients treated between 2015 and 2018 at the University of Maryland’s R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore. In addition to maternal demographics, details about the delivery, and perinatal outcomes, the researchers noted whether the trauma was violent, such as assault, or nonviolent, such as motor vehicle accidents. Moderate to severe trauma was defined as an injury severity score of at least 9.

Among 3,536 women aged 15-49 treated at the shock trauma center, 62 were pregnant, and 71% of these women were Black. Nineteen percent were White patients, 5% were Asian patients, and 5% were of a different race/ethnicity. Black patients were, on average, 27 years old at the time of the trauma. Non-Black patients were, on average, 25 years old. The average gestational age at the time of trauma was 25 weeks, 3 days in Black women and 23 weeks, 4 days in non-Black women.

The most common cause of trauma was a car accident, implicated in 56% of the trauma cases. Assault was the next most common cause of trauma, making up nearly a quarter (23%) of cases. The other injuries came from accidents (16%) or inhalation (5%). The average injury severity score was 4.7, with a mild injury for 76% of patients and a moderate to severe injury in 24%.

The researchers then compared the mechanisms and severity of injuries between Black and non-Black patients. The severity of trauma was similar between the two groups: Seventy-five percent of Black patients and 78% of non-Black patients had mild trauma with injury severity scores below 9. However, assault or another violent form of trauma was more likely to occur to Black patients than to non-Black patients. More than a quarter (27%) of Black patients experienced violent trauma, compared to 11% of non-Black patients.

“It is very notable that among pregnant people who experience trauma, obstetric complications leading to preterm delivery were observed much more often for those who are Black,” Dr. Shah said. “A case series to understand the underlying causes could be very valuable.”

Black patients delivered an average 59 days (8 weeks, 3 days) after the trauma compared to an average 83 days (11 weeks, 6 days) for non-Black patients, but the difference was not statistically significant. However, preterm birth was more likely in non-Black patients (83%) than in Black patients (78%). A similar proportion of deliveries were preterm in Black (57%) and non-Black (56%) patients.

Though the poster did not show the data, the researchers wrote that Black women who experienced moderate to severe trauma after 24 weeks’ gestational age either had a preterm birth or a fetal demise.

Though the study findings warrant deeper investigation, the study has substantial limitations.

“It is challenging to generalize from this study because the sample size is small and it is from a single institution,” Dr. Shah said. “It does not appear to be adequately powered to draw statistically significant conclusions. In particular, the data are not adequate to support the authors’ statement that Black people are more likely to experience the forms of described trauma generally.”

The authors and Dr. Shah reported no disclosures.

There has been a steady decline in the proportion of Black ob.gyn. residents from 2014 to 2019, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers found that Black residents made up 10.2% of ob.gyn. residents during the 2014-2015 academic year, compared with 7.9% in 2018-2019. Meanwhile, Native American or Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander residents were the least represented in the field, making up just 0.2% of residents in 2014 and 0.1% in 2015.

“When we look at the trend [of Black residents] across several years, it’s surprising that not only is the proportion of [ob.gyn.] Black residents [decreasing], but it was going down at a faster rate than other specialties,” study author Claudia Lopez, MD, said in an interview.

The ob.gyn. specialty tends to have the highest proportion of underrepresented physicians, especially Black and Latino physicians, compared with other specialties, according to a 2016 study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. This study also found that underrepresented minority ob.gyns. were more likely than White or Asian physicians to practice in underserved areas. However, researchers of the current study found that the decline in Black residents in this field is surprising.

“I do think that ob.gyn. is very unique in that it’s surgical but also has a lot of primary care elements,” Dr. Lopez said. “I think that’s probably why initially our specialty historically has more underrepresented minorities because it combines all those things and [physicians are] so intimate with their patient population.”

Dr. Lopez, resident physician at the University of California, Davis, and colleagues analyzed deidentified data on the race and ethnicity of more than 520,000 residents in ob.gyn., surgical, and nonsurgical specialties from JAMA Medical Education reports from 2014 to 2019.

They found that ob.gyn., surgical, and nonsurgical residents most commonly identified as White, followed by Asian. In addition to the decline in Black ob.gyn. residents, researchers noticed that the proportion of Latino residents remained relatively unchanged. Furthermore, while the racial and ethnic composition of residents varied each year, higher proportions of ob.gyn. residents identified as Black or Latino, compared with those in surgical and nonsurgical specialties. 

Researchers noted that, although their findings suggest ob.gyn. residencies have higher proportions of Black and Latino residents, compared with surgical and nonsurgical specialties, the diversity of the ob.gyn. programs lag behind the United States’ changing demographics.

“Medicine in general has a lot to do to match the [U.S. demographic] population,” Dr. Lopez said. “But at least the trend should hopefully be matching, showing some type of progression toward matching our population.”

Gnankang Sarah Napoe, MD, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that she was saddened by the new findings and believes that if the decline in Black residents continues it would exacerbate racial disparities in obstetric and gynecological care.

“I think recruitment should focus more on specifically recruiting [underrepresented] populations of students into our field, because we know that they are a crucial part of narrowing the health disparities,” said Dr. Napoe, assistant professor* in the department of obstetrics and gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh.

Significant health disparities exist within women’s health and ob.gyn. care, with Black, American Indian, and Alaska Native women being two to three times more likely to have a pregnancy-related death than White women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In an solicited commentary on the study, ob.gyns. from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, referred to the declining population of Black ob.gyn. residents as “a failure of the medical education system to adapt to the changing demographic needs of its patients and cultivate diversity within the academic pipeline.”

One approach to addressing these health disparities is by increasing the diversity among health care practitioners. A 2020 study published in JAMA Network Open found that a shared identity between the physician and patient is linked to increased patient satisfaction and higher levels of trust.

“We know that, within ob.gyn., there are higher proportions of minority physicians, but just because we know that doesn’t mean that we’re doing everything right,” Dr. Lopez said. “When we look at the bigger picture,we’re not actually seeing the change we want to see. We need to not be complacent and keep evaluating ourselves, because I think that’s how you change.”

The authors and editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

*This article has been updated to reflect the correct title for Dr. Sarah Napoe.

There has been a steady decline in the proportion of Black ob.gyn. residents from 2014 to 2019, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers found that Black residents made up 10.2% of ob.gyn. residents during the 2014-2015 academic year, compared with 7.9% in 2018-2019. Meanwhile, Native American or Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander residents were the least represented in the field, making up just 0.2% of residents in 2014 and 0.1% in 2015.

“When we look at the trend [of Black residents] across several years, it’s surprising that not only is the proportion of [ob.gyn.] Black residents [decreasing], but it was going down at a faster rate than other specialties,” study author Claudia Lopez, MD, said in an interview.

The ob.gyn. specialty tends to have the highest proportion of underrepresented physicians, especially Black and Latino physicians, compared with other specialties, according to a 2016 study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. This study also found that underrepresented minority ob.gyns. were more likely than White or Asian physicians to practice in underserved areas. However, researchers of the current study found that the decline in Black residents in this field is surprising.

“I do think that ob.gyn. is very unique in that it’s surgical but also has a lot of primary care elements,” Dr. Lopez said. “I think that’s probably why initially our specialty historically has more underrepresented minorities because it combines all those things and [physicians are] so intimate with their patient population.”

Dr. Lopez, resident physician at the University of California, Davis, and colleagues analyzed deidentified data on the race and ethnicity of more than 520,000 residents in ob.gyn., surgical, and nonsurgical specialties from JAMA Medical Education reports from 2014 to 2019.

They found that ob.gyn., surgical, and nonsurgical residents most commonly identified as White, followed by Asian. In addition to the decline in Black ob.gyn. residents, researchers noticed that the proportion of Latino residents remained relatively unchanged. Furthermore, while the racial and ethnic composition of residents varied each year, higher proportions of ob.gyn. residents identified as Black or Latino, compared with those in surgical and nonsurgical specialties. 

Researchers noted that, although their findings suggest ob.gyn. residencies have higher proportions of Black and Latino residents, compared with surgical and nonsurgical specialties, the diversity of the ob.gyn. programs lag behind the United States’ changing demographics.

“Medicine in general has a lot to do to match the [U.S. demographic] population,” Dr. Lopez said. “But at least the trend should hopefully be matching, showing some type of progression toward matching our population.”

Gnankang Sarah Napoe, MD, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that she was saddened by the new findings and believes that if the decline in Black residents continues it would exacerbate racial disparities in obstetric and gynecological care.

“I think recruitment should focus more on specifically recruiting [underrepresented] populations of students into our field, because we know that they are a crucial part of narrowing the health disparities,” said Dr. Napoe, assistant professor* in the department of obstetrics and gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh.

Significant health disparities exist within women’s health and ob.gyn. care, with Black, American Indian, and Alaska Native women being two to three times more likely to have a pregnancy-related death than White women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In an solicited commentary on the study, ob.gyns. from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, referred to the declining population of Black ob.gyn. residents as “a failure of the medical education system to adapt to the changing demographic needs of its patients and cultivate diversity within the academic pipeline.”

One approach to addressing these health disparities is by increasing the diversity among health care practitioners. A 2020 study published in JAMA Network Open found that a shared identity between the physician and patient is linked to increased patient satisfaction and higher levels of trust.

“We know that, within ob.gyn., there are higher proportions of minority physicians, but just because we know that doesn’t mean that we’re doing everything right,” Dr. Lopez said. “When we look at the bigger picture,we’re not actually seeing the change we want to see. We need to not be complacent and keep evaluating ourselves, because I think that’s how you change.”

The authors and editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

*This article has been updated to reflect the correct title for Dr. Sarah Napoe.

There has been a steady decline in the proportion of Black ob.gyn. residents from 2014 to 2019, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers found that Black residents made up 10.2% of ob.gyn. residents during the 2014-2015 academic year, compared with 7.9% in 2018-2019. Meanwhile, Native American or Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander residents were the least represented in the field, making up just 0.2% of residents in 2014 and 0.1% in 2015.

“When we look at the trend [of Black residents] across several years, it’s surprising that not only is the proportion of [ob.gyn.] Black residents [decreasing], but it was going down at a faster rate than other specialties,” study author Claudia Lopez, MD, said in an interview.

The ob.gyn. specialty tends to have the highest proportion of underrepresented physicians, especially Black and Latino physicians, compared with other specialties, according to a 2016 study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. This study also found that underrepresented minority ob.gyns. were more likely than White or Asian physicians to practice in underserved areas. However, researchers of the current study found that the decline in Black residents in this field is surprising.

“I do think that ob.gyn. is very unique in that it’s surgical but also has a lot of primary care elements,” Dr. Lopez said. “I think that’s probably why initially our specialty historically has more underrepresented minorities because it combines all those things and [physicians are] so intimate with their patient population.”

Dr. Lopez, resident physician at the University of California, Davis, and colleagues analyzed deidentified data on the race and ethnicity of more than 520,000 residents in ob.gyn., surgical, and nonsurgical specialties from JAMA Medical Education reports from 2014 to 2019.

They found that ob.gyn., surgical, and nonsurgical residents most commonly identified as White, followed by Asian. In addition to the decline in Black ob.gyn. residents, researchers noticed that the proportion of Latino residents remained relatively unchanged. Furthermore, while the racial and ethnic composition of residents varied each year, higher proportions of ob.gyn. residents identified as Black or Latino, compared with those in surgical and nonsurgical specialties. 

Researchers noted that, although their findings suggest ob.gyn. residencies have higher proportions of Black and Latino residents, compared with surgical and nonsurgical specialties, the diversity of the ob.gyn. programs lag behind the United States’ changing demographics.

“Medicine in general has a lot to do to match the [U.S. demographic] population,” Dr. Lopez said. “But at least the trend should hopefully be matching, showing some type of progression toward matching our population.”

Gnankang Sarah Napoe, MD, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that she was saddened by the new findings and believes that if the decline in Black residents continues it would exacerbate racial disparities in obstetric and gynecological care.

“I think recruitment should focus more on specifically recruiting [underrepresented] populations of students into our field, because we know that they are a crucial part of narrowing the health disparities,” said Dr. Napoe, assistant professor* in the department of obstetrics and gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh.

Significant health disparities exist within women’s health and ob.gyn. care, with Black, American Indian, and Alaska Native women being two to three times more likely to have a pregnancy-related death than White women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In an solicited commentary on the study, ob.gyns. from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, referred to the declining population of Black ob.gyn. residents as “a failure of the medical education system to adapt to the changing demographic needs of its patients and cultivate diversity within the academic pipeline.”

One approach to addressing these health disparities is by increasing the diversity among health care practitioners. A 2020 study published in JAMA Network Open found that a shared identity between the physician and patient is linked to increased patient satisfaction and higher levels of trust.

“We know that, within ob.gyn., there are higher proportions of minority physicians, but just because we know that doesn’t mean that we’re doing everything right,” Dr. Lopez said. “When we look at the bigger picture,we’re not actually seeing the change we want to see. We need to not be complacent and keep evaluating ourselves, because I think that’s how you change.”

The authors and editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

*This article has been updated to reflect the correct title for Dr. Sarah Napoe.

Obstetric patients and clinicians both overwhelmingly reported that telehealth was a safer way to receive ob.gyn. care and improve health care access during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey at a single institution. The findings, from the Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., were presented in a poster at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“The COVID-19 pandemic caused rapid and broad expansion of tele-obstetrics, warranting the need to assess patient and provider experiences and opinions about these services,” Karampreet Kaur, a 4th-year MD candidate at Vanderbilt University, and colleagues wrote in the poster. The group’s findings led them to conclude that virtual choices for prenatal care should be available independent of the pandemic.

Neel Shah, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and founding director of the Delivery Decisions Initiative at Harvard’s Ariadne Labs, agreed that the study results supported continuation of telehealth even without COVID-19. Dr. Shah was not involved with the research.

“The fact that telehealth is broadly acceptable is not surprising but the magnitudes are striking,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “Both providers and patients overwhelmingly see telehealth as a value-added fixture of obstetrical care that should be sustained beyond the pandemic.”

The researchers conducted an online survey of both obstetrical patients who received virtual prenatal care and ob.gyn. department providers, including MDs, DOs, advanced practice providers, genetic counselors, social workers, and registered dietitians.

Just over half (53%) of the 167 patients who completed the survey between June 2020 and April 2021 were between the ages 25 and 34. The remaining patients included 13% between ages 18 and 24 and 35% between ages 35 and 44. Most of these patients (84%) were at home for their telehealth appointment, but 16% were at a clinic for the telehealth appointment.

A quarter of the patients had a telehealth visit with a genetic counselor (26%) while 44% of patients saw an ob generalist and 28% saw a maternal fetal medicine specialist. Only 1% reported a social worker visit.

The majority of patients (75%) reported that they felt personally safer using telehealth rather than an in-person visit, and 18% said they would have forgone care if telehealth were not an option. Similarly, 74% of patients said the virtual care reduced their travel time, and 46% said they saved at least $35 in transportation, child care, or missed wages. More than half the patients surveyed were satisfied with their telehealth experience and believe Tennessee should have a tele-obstetrics program.

“The fact that a significant number of patients would have forgone care, and that nearly all providers observed improvements in access, makes widespread adoption of telehealth a moral imperative,” Dr. Shah said. “Telehealth and other forms of virtual care require rethinking our standard care models,” he added. “Traditional prenatal care for example is based on a model that is nearly a century old and may not meet the needs of many people. The experimentation with new ways of providing care that the pandemic forced should be an ongoing effort to ensure every person giving birth receives the care they deserve.”

Medical doctors (MD and DO) made up 53% of the 72 providers who completed the survey between June and August 2020, and a little over a third (36%) were advanced practice providers. Nearly all the providers (more than 95%) agreed with the statement that “telehealth was safer than in-clinic appointments for themselves, colleagues, and obstetrical patients.” Similar majorities felt telehealth was an acceptable way to provide health care (94%) and that virtual care improved access to health care (96%).

Most of the providers (85%) also felt that telehealth provided an opportunity for high-quality communication with their patients. More than half the providers said they would be willing to use telehealth outside of the pandemic, and a similar proportion felt that “Vanderbilt telehealth is a positive program for the state of Tennessee.”

Though not an author of the study, another Vanderbilt ob.gyn. also believes the findings support exploring continued telehealth options for the patients and providers interested in it.

“Health care providers and patients alike can attest to the benefits of telehealth utilization, Etoi A. Garrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Vanderbilt University, said in an interview. She was particularly struck by the savings reported by patients. “These costs are difficult to quantify but can have a significant impact on patients’ day-to-day quality of life,” she said.

A limitation of the study is the lack of information on how many were invited to complete it, so it’s not possible to know if the results are representative of the majority of people who used telehealth services, Dr. Garrison added. Dr. Shah agreed but didn’t think that limitation diminished the clinical implications of the study.

“A relatively small number of patients and providers are surveyed over a long period of time in which the context of the pandemic varied significantly,” he said. “Nonetheless, the findings show strong and internally consistent beliefs among those receiving and providing care that telehealth is valuable.”

The authors and Dr. Shah reported no disclosures. Dr. Garrison reported receiving a grant from the Tennessee Maternal Mortality Review committee to create an Unconscious Bias Faculty Train-the-Trainer program.

Obstetric patients and clinicians both overwhelmingly reported that telehealth was a safer way to receive ob.gyn. care and improve health care access during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey at a single institution. The findings, from the Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., were presented in a poster at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“The COVID-19 pandemic caused rapid and broad expansion of tele-obstetrics, warranting the need to assess patient and provider experiences and opinions about these services,” Karampreet Kaur, a 4th-year MD candidate at Vanderbilt University, and colleagues wrote in the poster. The group’s findings led them to conclude that virtual choices for prenatal care should be available independent of the pandemic.

Neel Shah, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and founding director of the Delivery Decisions Initiative at Harvard’s Ariadne Labs, agreed that the study results supported continuation of telehealth even without COVID-19. Dr. Shah was not involved with the research.

“The fact that telehealth is broadly acceptable is not surprising but the magnitudes are striking,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “Both providers and patients overwhelmingly see telehealth as a value-added fixture of obstetrical care that should be sustained beyond the pandemic.”

The researchers conducted an online survey of both obstetrical patients who received virtual prenatal care and ob.gyn. department providers, including MDs, DOs, advanced practice providers, genetic counselors, social workers, and registered dietitians.

Just over half (53%) of the 167 patients who completed the survey between June 2020 and April 2021 were between the ages 25 and 34. The remaining patients included 13% between ages 18 and 24 and 35% between ages 35 and 44. Most of these patients (84%) were at home for their telehealth appointment, but 16% were at a clinic for the telehealth appointment.

A quarter of the patients had a telehealth visit with a genetic counselor (26%) while 44% of patients saw an ob generalist and 28% saw a maternal fetal medicine specialist. Only 1% reported a social worker visit.

The majority of patients (75%) reported that they felt personally safer using telehealth rather than an in-person visit, and 18% said they would have forgone care if telehealth were not an option. Similarly, 74% of patients said the virtual care reduced their travel time, and 46% said they saved at least $35 in transportation, child care, or missed wages. More than half the patients surveyed were satisfied with their telehealth experience and believe Tennessee should have a tele-obstetrics program.

“The fact that a significant number of patients would have forgone care, and that nearly all providers observed improvements in access, makes widespread adoption of telehealth a moral imperative,” Dr. Shah said. “Telehealth and other forms of virtual care require rethinking our standard care models,” he added. “Traditional prenatal care for example is based on a model that is nearly a century old and may not meet the needs of many people. The experimentation with new ways of providing care that the pandemic forced should be an ongoing effort to ensure every person giving birth receives the care they deserve.”

Medical doctors (MD and DO) made up 53% of the 72 providers who completed the survey between June and August 2020, and a little over a third (36%) were advanced practice providers. Nearly all the providers (more than 95%) agreed with the statement that “telehealth was safer than in-clinic appointments for themselves, colleagues, and obstetrical patients.” Similar majorities felt telehealth was an acceptable way to provide health care (94%) and that virtual care improved access to health care (96%).

Most of the providers (85%) also felt that telehealth provided an opportunity for high-quality communication with their patients. More than half the providers said they would be willing to use telehealth outside of the pandemic, and a similar proportion felt that “Vanderbilt telehealth is a positive program for the state of Tennessee.”

Though not an author of the study, another Vanderbilt ob.gyn. also believes the findings support exploring continued telehealth options for the patients and providers interested in it.

“Health care providers and patients alike can attest to the benefits of telehealth utilization, Etoi A. Garrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Vanderbilt University, said in an interview. She was particularly struck by the savings reported by patients. “These costs are difficult to quantify but can have a significant impact on patients’ day-to-day quality of life,” she said.

A limitation of the study is the lack of information on how many were invited to complete it, so it’s not possible to know if the results are representative of the majority of people who used telehealth services, Dr. Garrison added. Dr. Shah agreed but didn’t think that limitation diminished the clinical implications of the study.

“A relatively small number of patients and providers are surveyed over a long period of time in which the context of the pandemic varied significantly,” he said. “Nonetheless, the findings show strong and internally consistent beliefs among those receiving and providing care that telehealth is valuable.”

The authors and Dr. Shah reported no disclosures. Dr. Garrison reported receiving a grant from the Tennessee Maternal Mortality Review committee to create an Unconscious Bias Faculty Train-the-Trainer program.

Obstetric patients and clinicians both overwhelmingly reported that telehealth was a safer way to receive ob.gyn. care and improve health care access during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a survey at a single institution. The findings, from the Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., were presented in a poster at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“The COVID-19 pandemic caused rapid and broad expansion of tele-obstetrics, warranting the need to assess patient and provider experiences and opinions about these services,” Karampreet Kaur, a 4th-year MD candidate at Vanderbilt University, and colleagues wrote in the poster. The group’s findings led them to conclude that virtual choices for prenatal care should be available independent of the pandemic.

Neel Shah, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and founding director of the Delivery Decisions Initiative at Harvard’s Ariadne Labs, agreed that the study results supported continuation of telehealth even without COVID-19. Dr. Shah was not involved with the research.

“The fact that telehealth is broadly acceptable is not surprising but the magnitudes are striking,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “Both providers and patients overwhelmingly see telehealth as a value-added fixture of obstetrical care that should be sustained beyond the pandemic.”

The researchers conducted an online survey of both obstetrical patients who received virtual prenatal care and ob.gyn. department providers, including MDs, DOs, advanced practice providers, genetic counselors, social workers, and registered dietitians.

Just over half (53%) of the 167 patients who completed the survey between June 2020 and April 2021 were between the ages 25 and 34. The remaining patients included 13% between ages 18 and 24 and 35% between ages 35 and 44. Most of these patients (84%) were at home for their telehealth appointment, but 16% were at a clinic for the telehealth appointment.

A quarter of the patients had a telehealth visit with a genetic counselor (26%) while 44% of patients saw an ob generalist and 28% saw a maternal fetal medicine specialist. Only 1% reported a social worker visit.

The majority of patients (75%) reported that they felt personally safer using telehealth rather than an in-person visit, and 18% said they would have forgone care if telehealth were not an option. Similarly, 74% of patients said the virtual care reduced their travel time, and 46% said they saved at least $35 in transportation, child care, or missed wages. More than half the patients surveyed were satisfied with their telehealth experience and believe Tennessee should have a tele-obstetrics program.

“The fact that a significant number of patients would have forgone care, and that nearly all providers observed improvements in access, makes widespread adoption of telehealth a moral imperative,” Dr. Shah said. “Telehealth and other forms of virtual care require rethinking our standard care models,” he added. “Traditional prenatal care for example is based on a model that is nearly a century old and may not meet the needs of many people. The experimentation with new ways of providing care that the pandemic forced should be an ongoing effort to ensure every person giving birth receives the care they deserve.”

Medical doctors (MD and DO) made up 53% of the 72 providers who completed the survey between June and August 2020, and a little over a third (36%) were advanced practice providers. Nearly all the providers (more than 95%) agreed with the statement that “telehealth was safer than in-clinic appointments for themselves, colleagues, and obstetrical patients.” Similar majorities felt telehealth was an acceptable way to provide health care (94%) and that virtual care improved access to health care (96%).

Most of the providers (85%) also felt that telehealth provided an opportunity for high-quality communication with their patients. More than half the providers said they would be willing to use telehealth outside of the pandemic, and a similar proportion felt that “Vanderbilt telehealth is a positive program for the state of Tennessee.”

Though not an author of the study, another Vanderbilt ob.gyn. also believes the findings support exploring continued telehealth options for the patients and providers interested in it.

“Health care providers and patients alike can attest to the benefits of telehealth utilization, Etoi A. Garrison, MD, PhD, associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Vanderbilt University, said in an interview. She was particularly struck by the savings reported by patients. “These costs are difficult to quantify but can have a significant impact on patients’ day-to-day quality of life,” she said.

A limitation of the study is the lack of information on how many were invited to complete it, so it’s not possible to know if the results are representative of the majority of people who used telehealth services, Dr. Garrison added. Dr. Shah agreed but didn’t think that limitation diminished the clinical implications of the study.

“A relatively small number of patients and providers are surveyed over a long period of time in which the context of the pandemic varied significantly,” he said. “Nonetheless, the findings show strong and internally consistent beliefs among those receiving and providing care that telehealth is valuable.”

The authors and Dr. Shah reported no disclosures. Dr. Garrison reported receiving a grant from the Tennessee Maternal Mortality Review committee to create an Unconscious Bias Faculty Train-the-Trainer program.

Taking more steps each day, in short spurts or longer bouts, was associated with a longer life in women older than 60 years, according to data from more than 16,000 participants in the ongoing Women’s Health Study.

The American Heart Association recommends at least 150 minutes per week of moderate physical activity, 75 minutes of vigorous physical activity, or a combination of both as fitness guidelines for adults. Walking is a safe and easy way for many adults to follow these guidelines, according to Christopher C. Moore, MS, a PhD candidate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The popularity of step counts reflect that they are simple and objective, and “focusing on steps can help promote an active lifestyle,” he said. Data on the impact of sporadic steps accumulated outside of longer bouts of activity on health outcomes are limited; however, technology advances in the form of fitness apps and wearable devices make it possible for researchers to track and measure the benefits of short periods of activity as well as longer periods.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, sponsored by the AHA, Mr. Moore and colleagues assessed data from women older than 60 years who used wearable step-counting devices to measure their daily steps and walking patterns.

The study population included 16,732 women enrolled in the Women’s Health Study, a longstanding study of heart disease, cancer, and disease prevention among women in the United States. The participants wore waist step counters 4-7 days a week during 2011-2015. The average of the women was 72 years; 96% were non-Hispanic White, and the average BMI was 26 kg/m².

The researchers divided the total number of steps for each study participant into two groups: “bouted” steps, defined as 10 minutes or longer bouts of walking with few interruptions; and “sporadic” steps, defined as short spurts of walking during regular daily activities such as housework, taking the stairs, or walking to or from a car.

A total of 804 deaths occurred during an average of 6 years of follow-up. Each initial increase of 1,000 steps including sporadic or bouted steps was associated with a 28% decrease in death, compared with no daily steps (hazard ratio, 0.72).

Each increasing quartile of sporadic steps was linked with higher total steps per day, Mr. Moore said. “Initial increase in sporadic steps corresponded to the greatest reductions in mortality,” with a HR of 0.69 per additional sporadic steps below 3,200 per day, and the impact on reduced mortality plateaued at about 4,500 sporadic steps per day.

In further analysis, the researchers also found a roughly 32% decrease in death in participants who took more than 2,000 steps daily in uninterrupted bouts (HR, 0.69).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively short follow-up period and number of events, the assessment of steps at a single time point, and the mostly homogeneous population, Mr. Moore noted. Additional research is needed to assess whether the results are generalizable to men, younger women, and diverse racial and ethnic groups.

However, the results may have implications for public health messaging, he emphasized. The message is that, to impact longevity, the total volume of steps is more important than the type of activity through which they are accumulated.

“You can accumulate your steps through longer bouts of purposeful activity or through everyday behaviors such as walking to your car, taking the stairs, and doing housework,” Mr. Moore concluded.

Find a friend, both of you benefit

On the basis of this study and other available evidence, more steps daily are recommended for everyone, Nieca Goldberg, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

“You can increase minutes of walking and frequency of walking,” she said.

Dr. Goldberg emphasized that you don’t need a fancy app or wearable device to up your steps. She offered some tips to help overcome barriers to putting one foot in front of the other. “Take the steps instead of the elevator. Park your car farther from your destination so you can walk.” Also, you can help yourself and help a friend to better health. “Get a walking buddy so you can encourage each other to walk,” Dr. Goldberg added.

Mr. Moore and Dr. Goldberg had no financial conflicts to disclose. The Women’s Health Study is funded by Brigham and Women’s Hospital; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the National Cancer Institute. Mr. Moore was funded by a grant from the NHLBI but had no other financial conflicts to disclose.

Taking more steps each day, in short spurts or longer bouts, was associated with a longer life in women older than 60 years, according to data from more than 16,000 participants in the ongoing Women’s Health Study.

The American Heart Association recommends at least 150 minutes per week of moderate physical activity, 75 minutes of vigorous physical activity, or a combination of both as fitness guidelines for adults. Walking is a safe and easy way for many adults to follow these guidelines, according to Christopher C. Moore, MS, a PhD candidate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The popularity of step counts reflect that they are simple and objective, and “focusing on steps can help promote an active lifestyle,” he said. Data on the impact of sporadic steps accumulated outside of longer bouts of activity on health outcomes are limited; however, technology advances in the form of fitness apps and wearable devices make it possible for researchers to track and measure the benefits of short periods of activity as well as longer periods.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, sponsored by the AHA, Mr. Moore and colleagues assessed data from women older than 60 years who used wearable step-counting devices to measure their daily steps and walking patterns.

The study population included 16,732 women enrolled in the Women’s Health Study, a longstanding study of heart disease, cancer, and disease prevention among women in the United States. The participants wore waist step counters 4-7 days a week during 2011-2015. The average of the women was 72 years; 96% were non-Hispanic White, and the average BMI was 26 kg/m².

The researchers divided the total number of steps for each study participant into two groups: “bouted” steps, defined as 10 minutes or longer bouts of walking with few interruptions; and “sporadic” steps, defined as short spurts of walking during regular daily activities such as housework, taking the stairs, or walking to or from a car.

A total of 804 deaths occurred during an average of 6 years of follow-up. Each initial increase of 1,000 steps including sporadic or bouted steps was associated with a 28% decrease in death, compared with no daily steps (hazard ratio, 0.72).

Each increasing quartile of sporadic steps was linked with higher total steps per day, Mr. Moore said. “Initial increase in sporadic steps corresponded to the greatest reductions in mortality,” with a HR of 0.69 per additional sporadic steps below 3,200 per day, and the impact on reduced mortality plateaued at about 4,500 sporadic steps per day.

In further analysis, the researchers also found a roughly 32% decrease in death in participants who took more than 2,000 steps daily in uninterrupted bouts (HR, 0.69).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively short follow-up period and number of events, the assessment of steps at a single time point, and the mostly homogeneous population, Mr. Moore noted. Additional research is needed to assess whether the results are generalizable to men, younger women, and diverse racial and ethnic groups.

However, the results may have implications for public health messaging, he emphasized. The message is that, to impact longevity, the total volume of steps is more important than the type of activity through which they are accumulated.

“You can accumulate your steps through longer bouts of purposeful activity or through everyday behaviors such as walking to your car, taking the stairs, and doing housework,” Mr. Moore concluded.

Find a friend, both of you benefit

On the basis of this study and other available evidence, more steps daily are recommended for everyone, Nieca Goldberg, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

“You can increase minutes of walking and frequency of walking,” she said.

Dr. Goldberg emphasized that you don’t need a fancy app or wearable device to up your steps. She offered some tips to help overcome barriers to putting one foot in front of the other. “Take the steps instead of the elevator. Park your car farther from your destination so you can walk.” Also, you can help yourself and help a friend to better health. “Get a walking buddy so you can encourage each other to walk,” Dr. Goldberg added.

Mr. Moore and Dr. Goldberg had no financial conflicts to disclose. The Women’s Health Study is funded by Brigham and Women’s Hospital; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the National Cancer Institute. Mr. Moore was funded by a grant from the NHLBI but had no other financial conflicts to disclose.

Taking more steps each day, in short spurts or longer bouts, was associated with a longer life in women older than 60 years, according to data from more than 16,000 participants in the ongoing Women’s Health Study.

The American Heart Association recommends at least 150 minutes per week of moderate physical activity, 75 minutes of vigorous physical activity, or a combination of both as fitness guidelines for adults. Walking is a safe and easy way for many adults to follow these guidelines, according to Christopher C. Moore, MS, a PhD candidate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The popularity of step counts reflect that they are simple and objective, and “focusing on steps can help promote an active lifestyle,” he said. Data on the impact of sporadic steps accumulated outside of longer bouts of activity on health outcomes are limited; however, technology advances in the form of fitness apps and wearable devices make it possible for researchers to track and measure the benefits of short periods of activity as well as longer periods.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, sponsored by the AHA, Mr. Moore and colleagues assessed data from women older than 60 years who used wearable step-counting devices to measure their daily steps and walking patterns.

The study population included 16,732 women enrolled in the Women’s Health Study, a longstanding study of heart disease, cancer, and disease prevention among women in the United States. The participants wore waist step counters 4-7 days a week during 2011-2015. The average of the women was 72 years; 96% were non-Hispanic White, and the average BMI was 26 kg/m².

The researchers divided the total number of steps for each study participant into two groups: “bouted” steps, defined as 10 minutes or longer bouts of walking with few interruptions; and “sporadic” steps, defined as short spurts of walking during regular daily activities such as housework, taking the stairs, or walking to or from a car.

A total of 804 deaths occurred during an average of 6 years of follow-up. Each initial increase of 1,000 steps including sporadic or bouted steps was associated with a 28% decrease in death, compared with no daily steps (hazard ratio, 0.72).

Each increasing quartile of sporadic steps was linked with higher total steps per day, Mr. Moore said. “Initial increase in sporadic steps corresponded to the greatest reductions in mortality,” with a HR of 0.69 per additional sporadic steps below 3,200 per day, and the impact on reduced mortality plateaued at about 4,500 sporadic steps per day.

In further analysis, the researchers also found a roughly 32% decrease in death in participants who took more than 2,000 steps daily in uninterrupted bouts (HR, 0.69).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively short follow-up period and number of events, the assessment of steps at a single time point, and the mostly homogeneous population, Mr. Moore noted. Additional research is needed to assess whether the results are generalizable to men, younger women, and diverse racial and ethnic groups.

However, the results may have implications for public health messaging, he emphasized. The message is that, to impact longevity, the total volume of steps is more important than the type of activity through which they are accumulated.

“You can accumulate your steps through longer bouts of purposeful activity or through everyday behaviors such as walking to your car, taking the stairs, and doing housework,” Mr. Moore concluded.

Find a friend, both of you benefit

On the basis of this study and other available evidence, more steps daily are recommended for everyone, Nieca Goldberg, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

“You can increase minutes of walking and frequency of walking,” she said.

Dr. Goldberg emphasized that you don’t need a fancy app or wearable device to up your steps. She offered some tips to help overcome barriers to putting one foot in front of the other. “Take the steps instead of the elevator. Park your car farther from your destination so you can walk.” Also, you can help yourself and help a friend to better health. “Get a walking buddy so you can encourage each other to walk,” Dr. Goldberg added.

Mr. Moore and Dr. Goldberg had no financial conflicts to disclose. The Women’s Health Study is funded by Brigham and Women’s Hospital; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the National Cancer Institute. Mr. Moore was funded by a grant from the NHLBI but had no other financial conflicts to disclose.

Obstetric patients whose first language is not English received fewer pain assessments and fewer doses of NSAIDs and oxycodone therapeutic equivalents (OTEs) following cesarean deliveries, according to a retrospective cohort study poster presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The findings “may indicate language as a barrier for equitable pain management in the postpartum period,” concluded Alison Wiles, MD, a resident at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, N.Y., and colleagues. They recommended “scheduled pain assessment and around the clock nonopioid medication administration” as potential ways to reduce the disparities.

“Racial and ethnic disparities in pain management have been well documented in both inpatient and outpatient settings, [and] similar disparities exist within postpartum pain management,” the researchers note in their background material. They also note that non-Hispanic White communities tend to have a higher incidence of opioid misuse.

The researchers conducted a retrospective study of 327 women who had cesarean deliveries from January to June 2018 at Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital. They excluded women who underwent cesarean hysterectomies, received general anesthesia or patient-controlled analgesia, had a history of drug use, or had allergies to opiates. They did not note incidence of uterine fibroids, endometriosis, or other gynecologic conditions aside from delivery that could cause pain.

The population included a similar number of non-Hispanic White women (n = 111) and Hispanic women (n = 125). The remaining study participants included 32 non-Hispanic Black women and 59 women who were Asian or had another race/ethnicity. The women’s average age was 31, which was statistically similar across all four race/ethnicity groups. Average body mass index of participants was also similar, ranging from 32 to 34.6 kg/m², across all four demographic groups.

About half of all the women (52%) had a previous cesarean delivery, but rates were significantly different between groups: 31% of non-Hispanic Black women and 58% of Hispanic women had a prior cesarean, compared to 50% of non-Hispanic White, Asian, and other women (P < .05).

Half the women in the study overall (50.5%) had public insurance, but the proportion of those with public insurance differed significantly by racial/ethnic demographics. Less than a quarter of Asian/other women (23%) had public insurance, compared with 78% of Hispanic women, 74% of non-Hispanic White women, and 59% of non-Hispanic Black women (P < .0001).

Most of the women (76%) spoke English as their primary language, which included nearly all the women in each demographic group except Hispanic, in which 58% of the women’s primary language was Spanish or another language (P < .0001).

Hispanic patients received an average of 10 pain assessments after their cesarean, compared with an average of 11 in each of the other demographic groups (P = .02). Similarly, English speakers received an average 11 pain assessments, but those who primarily spoke Spanish or another language received 10 (P = .01).

The differences between English and non-English speakers were reflected in who received pain medication even though pain scores were the same between the two groups. English speakers received an average two doses of NSAIDs in the first 24 hours post partum, compared with one dose for those who spoke a primary language other than English (P = .03). At 24-48 hours post partum, those who spoke English received an average three NSAID doses, compared with two among those whose primary language was Spanish or another language (P = .03).

There was no difference between language groups in doses of OTEs in the first 24 hours post partum, but differences did occur on the second day. Women who primarily spoke English received an average four OTE doses in the 24-48 hours post partum, compared with two doses given to women who spoke a non-English primary language (P = .03).

Differences were less consistent or not significant when looking solely at race/ethnicity. All four groups received an average of two NSAID doses in the first 24 hours post partum, but second-day rates varied. Non-Hispanic White women and Asian/other women received an average three doses from 24 to 48 hours post partum while non-Hispanic Black women received one and Hispanic women received two (P = .0009).

No statistically significant differences in OTE doses occurred across the groups in the first 24 hours, but from 24 to 48 hours, the average two doses received by Hispanic women and 3 doses received by Asian women differed significantly from the average four doses received by non-Hispanic White women and the average five doses received by non-Hispanic Black women (P =.01).

“Non-Hispanic Black patients had higher OTE doses and fewer NSAID doses in the 24- to 48-hour postpartum period despite no differences in severe pain scores,” the authors also reported.

“These findings are surprising given the standardized protocols in place designed to assess and treat pain post partum,” Etoi A. Garrison, MD, PhD, an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Memphis, Tenn., said in an interview. ” Protocols should minimize bias and promote equitable delivery of care.”

Dr. Garrison said it’s important to find out why these discrepancies exist even when ready access to interpretation services exist in the hospital.

“An important component of health care disparity research is to hear directly from patients themselves about their experiences,” Dr. Garrison said. “Often the patient voice is an overlooked and underappreciated resource. I hope that future iterations of this work include patient perceptions about the adequacy of postpartum care and provide more information about how health care delivery can be tailored to the unique needs of this vulnerable population.”

The authors reported no disclosures. Dr Garrison reported receiving a grant from the State of Tennessee Maternal Mortality Review Committee to Create an Unconscious Bias Faculty Train-the-Trainer Program.

Obstetric patients whose first language is not English received fewer pain assessments and fewer doses of NSAIDs and oxycodone therapeutic equivalents (OTEs) following cesarean deliveries, according to a retrospective cohort study poster presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The findings “may indicate language as a barrier for equitable pain management in the postpartum period,” concluded Alison Wiles, MD, a resident at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, N.Y., and colleagues. They recommended “scheduled pain assessment and around the clock nonopioid medication administration” as potential ways to reduce the disparities.

“Racial and ethnic disparities in pain management have been well documented in both inpatient and outpatient settings, [and] similar disparities exist within postpartum pain management,” the researchers note in their background material. They also note that non-Hispanic White communities tend to have a higher incidence of opioid misuse.

The researchers conducted a retrospective study of 327 women who had cesarean deliveries from January to June 2018 at Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital. They excluded women who underwent cesarean hysterectomies, received general anesthesia or patient-controlled analgesia, had a history of drug use, or had allergies to opiates. They did not note incidence of uterine fibroids, endometriosis, or other gynecologic conditions aside from delivery that could cause pain.

The population included a similar number of non-Hispanic White women (n = 111) and Hispanic women (n = 125). The remaining study participants included 32 non-Hispanic Black women and 59 women who were Asian or had another race/ethnicity. The women’s average age was 31, which was statistically similar across all four race/ethnicity groups. Average body mass index of participants was also similar, ranging from 32 to 34.6 kg/m², across all four demographic groups.

About half of all the women (52%) had a previous cesarean delivery, but rates were significantly different between groups: 31% of non-Hispanic Black women and 58% of Hispanic women had a prior cesarean, compared to 50% of non-Hispanic White, Asian, and other women (P < .05).

Half the women in the study overall (50.5%) had public insurance, but the proportion of those with public insurance differed significantly by racial/ethnic demographics. Less than a quarter of Asian/other women (23%) had public insurance, compared with 78% of Hispanic women, 74% of non-Hispanic White women, and 59% of non-Hispanic Black women (P < .0001).

Most of the women (76%) spoke English as their primary language, which included nearly all the women in each demographic group except Hispanic, in which 58% of the women’s primary language was Spanish or another language (P < .0001).

Hispanic patients received an average of 10 pain assessments after their cesarean, compared with an average of 11 in each of the other demographic groups (P = .02). Similarly, English speakers received an average 11 pain assessments, but those who primarily spoke Spanish or another language received 10 (P = .01).

The differences between English and non-English speakers were reflected in who received pain medication even though pain scores were the same between the two groups. English speakers received an average two doses of NSAIDs in the first 24 hours post partum, compared with one dose for those who spoke a primary language other than English (P = .03). At 24-48 hours post partum, those who spoke English received an average three NSAID doses, compared with two among those whose primary language was Spanish or another language (P = .03).

There was no difference between language groups in doses of OTEs in the first 24 hours post partum, but differences did occur on the second day. Women who primarily spoke English received an average four OTE doses in the 24-48 hours post partum, compared with two doses given to women who spoke a non-English primary language (P = .03).

Differences were less consistent or not significant when looking solely at race/ethnicity. All four groups received an average of two NSAID doses in the first 24 hours post partum, but second-day rates varied. Non-Hispanic White women and Asian/other women received an average three doses from 24 to 48 hours post partum while non-Hispanic Black women received one and Hispanic women received two (P = .0009).

No statistically significant differences in OTE doses occurred across the groups in the first 24 hours, but from 24 to 48 hours, the average two doses received by Hispanic women and 3 doses received by Asian women differed significantly from the average four doses received by non-Hispanic White women and the average five doses received by non-Hispanic Black women (P =.01).

“Non-Hispanic Black patients had higher OTE doses and fewer NSAID doses in the 24- to 48-hour postpartum period despite no differences in severe pain scores,” the authors also reported.

“These findings are surprising given the standardized protocols in place designed to assess and treat pain post partum,” Etoi A. Garrison, MD, PhD, an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Memphis, Tenn., said in an interview. ” Protocols should minimize bias and promote equitable delivery of care.”

Dr. Garrison said it’s important to find out why these discrepancies exist even when ready access to interpretation services exist in the hospital.

“An important component of health care disparity research is to hear directly from patients themselves about their experiences,” Dr. Garrison said. “Often the patient voice is an overlooked and underappreciated resource. I hope that future iterations of this work include patient perceptions about the adequacy of postpartum care and provide more information about how health care delivery can be tailored to the unique needs of this vulnerable population.”

The authors reported no disclosures. Dr Garrison reported receiving a grant from the State of Tennessee Maternal Mortality Review Committee to Create an Unconscious Bias Faculty Train-the-Trainer Program.

Obstetric patients whose first language is not English received fewer pain assessments and fewer doses of NSAIDs and oxycodone therapeutic equivalents (OTEs) following cesarean deliveries, according to a retrospective cohort study poster presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The findings “may indicate language as a barrier for equitable pain management in the postpartum period,” concluded Alison Wiles, MD, a resident at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, N.Y., and colleagues. They recommended “scheduled pain assessment and around the clock nonopioid medication administration” as potential ways to reduce the disparities.

“Racial and ethnic disparities in pain management have been well documented in both inpatient and outpatient settings, [and] similar disparities exist within postpartum pain management,” the researchers note in their background material. They also note that non-Hispanic White communities tend to have a higher incidence of opioid misuse.

The researchers conducted a retrospective study of 327 women who had cesarean deliveries from January to June 2018 at Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital. They excluded women who underwent cesarean hysterectomies, received general anesthesia or patient-controlled analgesia, had a history of drug use, or had allergies to opiates. They did not note incidence of uterine fibroids, endometriosis, or other gynecologic conditions aside from delivery that could cause pain.

The population included a similar number of non-Hispanic White women (n = 111) and Hispanic women (n = 125). The remaining study participants included 32 non-Hispanic Black women and 59 women who were Asian or had another race/ethnicity. The women’s average age was 31, which was statistically similar across all four race/ethnicity groups. Average body mass index of participants was also similar, ranging from 32 to 34.6 kg/m², across all four demographic groups.

About half of all the women (52%) had a previous cesarean delivery, but rates were significantly different between groups: 31% of non-Hispanic Black women and 58% of Hispanic women had a prior cesarean, compared to 50% of non-Hispanic White, Asian, and other women (P < .05).

Half the women in the study overall (50.5%) had public insurance, but the proportion of those with public insurance differed significantly by racial/ethnic demographics. Less than a quarter of Asian/other women (23%) had public insurance, compared with 78% of Hispanic women, 74% of non-Hispanic White women, and 59% of non-Hispanic Black women (P < .0001).

Most of the women (76%) spoke English as their primary language, which included nearly all the women in each demographic group except Hispanic, in which 58% of the women’s primary language was Spanish or another language (P < .0001).

Hispanic patients received an average of 10 pain assessments after their cesarean, compared with an average of 11 in each of the other demographic groups (P = .02). Similarly, English speakers received an average 11 pain assessments, but those who primarily spoke Spanish or another language received 10 (P = .01).

The differences between English and non-English speakers were reflected in who received pain medication even though pain scores were the same between the two groups. English speakers received an average two doses of NSAIDs in the first 24 hours post partum, compared with one dose for those who spoke a primary language other than English (P = .03). At 24-48 hours post partum, those who spoke English received an average three NSAID doses, compared with two among those whose primary language was Spanish or another language (P = .03).

There was no difference between language groups in doses of OTEs in the first 24 hours post partum, but differences did occur on the second day. Women who primarily spoke English received an average four OTE doses in the 24-48 hours post partum, compared with two doses given to women who spoke a non-English primary language (P = .03).

Differences were less consistent or not significant when looking solely at race/ethnicity. All four groups received an average of two NSAID doses in the first 24 hours post partum, but second-day rates varied. Non-Hispanic White women and Asian/other women received an average three doses from 24 to 48 hours post partum while non-Hispanic Black women received one and Hispanic women received two (P = .0009).

No statistically significant differences in OTE doses occurred across the groups in the first 24 hours, but from 24 to 48 hours, the average two doses received by Hispanic women and 3 doses received by Asian women differed significantly from the average four doses received by non-Hispanic White women and the average five doses received by non-Hispanic Black women (P =.01).

“Non-Hispanic Black patients had higher OTE doses and fewer NSAID doses in the 24- to 48-hour postpartum period despite no differences in severe pain scores,” the authors also reported.

“These findings are surprising given the standardized protocols in place designed to assess and treat pain post partum,” Etoi A. Garrison, MD, PhD, an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Memphis, Tenn., said in an interview. ” Protocols should minimize bias and promote equitable delivery of care.”

Dr. Garrison said it’s important to find out why these discrepancies exist even when ready access to interpretation services exist in the hospital.

“An important component of health care disparity research is to hear directly from patients themselves about their experiences,” Dr. Garrison said. “Often the patient voice is an overlooked and underappreciated resource. I hope that future iterations of this work include patient perceptions about the adequacy of postpartum care and provide more information about how health care delivery can be tailored to the unique needs of this vulnerable population.”

The authors reported no disclosures. Dr Garrison reported receiving a grant from the State of Tennessee Maternal Mortality Review Committee to Create an Unconscious Bias Faculty Train-the-Trainer Program.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ibrexafungerp tablets (Brexafemme) as a 1-day oral therapy for vaginal yeast infections.

Ibrexafungerp is the first drug approved in a new antifungal class for vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) in more than 20 years, the drug’s manufacturer Scynexis said in a press release. It becomes the first and only nonazole treatment for vaginal yeast infections.

The biotechnology company said approval came after positive results from two phase 3 studies in which oral ibrexafungerp demonstrated efficacy and tolerability. The most common reactions observed in clinical trials were diarrhea, nausea, abdominal pain, dizziness, and vomiting.

There are few other treatments for vaginal yeast infections, which is the second most common cause of vaginitis. Those previously approved agents include several topical azole antifungals and oral fluconazole (Diflucan), which, Scynexis said, is the only other orally administered antifungal approved for the treatment of VVC in the United States and has  accounted for over more than 90% of prescriptions written for the condition each year.

However, the company noted, oral fluconazole reports a 55% therapeutic cure rate on its label, which now also includes warnings of potential fetal harm, demonstrating the need for new oral options.

The new drug may not fill that need for pregnant women, however, as the company noted that ibrexafungerp should not be used during pregnancy, and administration during pregnancy “may cause fetal harm based on animal studies.”

Because of possible teratogenic effects, the company advised clinicians to verify pregnancy status in females of reproductive potential before prescribing ibrexafungerp and advises effective contraception during treatment.

VVC can come with substantial morbidity, including genital pain, itching and burning, reduced sexual pleasure, and psychological distress.

David Angulo, MD, chief medical officer for Scynexis, said in a statement the tablets brings new benefits.

Dr. Angulo said the drug “has a differentiated fungicidal mechanism of action that kills a broad range of Candida species, including azole-resistant strains. We are working on completing our CANDLE study investigating ibrexafungerp for the prevention of recurrent VVC and expect we will be submitting a supplemental NDA [new drug application] in the first half of 2022.”

Scynexis said it partnered with Amplity Health, a Pennsylvania-based pharmaceutical company, to support U.S. marketing of the drug. The commercial launch will follow the approval.

Ibrexafungerp was granted approval through both the FDA’s Qualified Infectious Disease Product and Fast Track designations. It is expected to be marketed exclusively in the United States for 10 years.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ibrexafungerp tablets (Brexafemme) as a 1-day oral therapy for vaginal yeast infections.

Ibrexafungerp is the first drug approved in a new antifungal class for vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) in more than 20 years, the drug’s manufacturer Scynexis said in a press release. It becomes the first and only nonazole treatment for vaginal yeast infections.

The biotechnology company said approval came after positive results from two phase 3 studies in which oral ibrexafungerp demonstrated efficacy and tolerability. The most common reactions observed in clinical trials were diarrhea, nausea, abdominal pain, dizziness, and vomiting.

There are few other treatments for vaginal yeast infections, which is the second most common cause of vaginitis. Those previously approved agents include several topical azole antifungals and oral fluconazole (Diflucan), which, Scynexis said, is the only other orally administered antifungal approved for the treatment of VVC in the United States and has  accounted for over more than 90% of prescriptions written for the condition each year.

However, the company noted, oral fluconazole reports a 55% therapeutic cure rate on its label, which now also includes warnings of potential fetal harm, demonstrating the need for new oral options.

The new drug may not fill that need for pregnant women, however, as the company noted that ibrexafungerp should not be used during pregnancy, and administration during pregnancy “may cause fetal harm based on animal studies.”

Because of possible teratogenic effects, the company advised clinicians to verify pregnancy status in females of reproductive potential before prescribing ibrexafungerp and advises effective contraception during treatment.

VVC can come with substantial morbidity, including genital pain, itching and burning, reduced sexual pleasure, and psychological distress.

David Angulo, MD, chief medical officer for Scynexis, said in a statement the tablets brings new benefits.

Dr. Angulo said the drug “has a differentiated fungicidal mechanism of action that kills a broad range of Candida species, including azole-resistant strains. We are working on completing our CANDLE study investigating ibrexafungerp for the prevention of recurrent VVC and expect we will be submitting a supplemental NDA [new drug application] in the first half of 2022.”

Scynexis said it partnered with Amplity Health, a Pennsylvania-based pharmaceutical company, to support U.S. marketing of the drug. The commercial launch will follow the approval.

Ibrexafungerp was granted approval through both the FDA’s Qualified Infectious Disease Product and Fast Track designations. It is expected to be marketed exclusively in the United States for 10 years.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ibrexafungerp tablets (Brexafemme) as a 1-day oral therapy for vaginal yeast infections.

Ibrexafungerp is the first drug approved in a new antifungal class for vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) in more than 20 years, the drug’s manufacturer Scynexis said in a press release. It becomes the first and only nonazole treatment for vaginal yeast infections.

The biotechnology company said approval came after positive results from two phase 3 studies in which oral ibrexafungerp demonstrated efficacy and tolerability. The most common reactions observed in clinical trials were diarrhea, nausea, abdominal pain, dizziness, and vomiting.

There are few other treatments for vaginal yeast infections, which is the second most common cause of vaginitis. Those previously approved agents include several topical azole antifungals and oral fluconazole (Diflucan), which, Scynexis said, is the only other orally administered antifungal approved for the treatment of VVC in the United States and has  accounted for over more than 90% of prescriptions written for the condition each year.

However, the company noted, oral fluconazole reports a 55% therapeutic cure rate on its label, which now also includes warnings of potential fetal harm, demonstrating the need for new oral options.

The new drug may not fill that need for pregnant women, however, as the company noted that ibrexafungerp should not be used during pregnancy, and administration during pregnancy “may cause fetal harm based on animal studies.”

Because of possible teratogenic effects, the company advised clinicians to verify pregnancy status in females of reproductive potential before prescribing ibrexafungerp and advises effective contraception during treatment.

VVC can come with substantial morbidity, including genital pain, itching and burning, reduced sexual pleasure, and psychological distress.

David Angulo, MD, chief medical officer for Scynexis, said in a statement the tablets brings new benefits.

Dr. Angulo said the drug “has a differentiated fungicidal mechanism of action that kills a broad range of Candida species, including azole-resistant strains. We are working on completing our CANDLE study investigating ibrexafungerp for the prevention of recurrent VVC and expect we will be submitting a supplemental NDA [new drug application] in the first half of 2022.”

Scynexis said it partnered with Amplity Health, a Pennsylvania-based pharmaceutical company, to support U.S. marketing of the drug. The commercial launch will follow the approval.

Ibrexafungerp was granted approval through both the FDA’s Qualified Infectious Disease Product and Fast Track designations. It is expected to be marketed exclusively in the United States for 10 years.
 

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

Researchers are trying to understand how e-cigarette use affects pregnancy and birth outcomes. This question may become more relevant as younger vapers, among whom the devices gained considerable popularity, start having children.

Limited emerging data from animal experiments and human epidemiologic studies suggest that vaping may have negative effects on fertility and pregnancy. “Even if these impacts are less severe than conventional smoking, we really should be thinking about alternate options that may be safer for our patients than inhalation of this aerosol,” said Blair J. Wylie, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

Dr. Wylie reviewed what is known about vaping, including chemicals other than nicotine that have been detected in vape aerosols, and pregnancy at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“There’s a lot we don’t know,” she said. “These products were only introduced recently, in 2003. They are marketed aggressively to our youth and have gained tremendous popularity among that population. And it’s only a matter of time, I think, before we see a lot of use in our own patient population.”

In a separate study presented at the ACOG meeting, Nicole Izhakoff, a researcher at Florida International University, Miami, and colleagues evaluated the association between e-cigarette use during pregnancy and unfavorable birth outcomes, such as preterm birth, low birth weight, or extended hospital stay for the newborn.

The investigators used 2016-2017 survey data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. In all, 71,940 women completed the survey, including 859 who reported e-cigarette use during pregnancy.

After adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, insurance, maternal education, prenatal care, abuse during pregnancy, and complications during pregnancy, the researchers estimated that the odds of an unfavorable birth outcome were 62% greater among women who used e-cigarettes during pregnancy, compared with those who did not.

The researchers lacked information about simultaneous use of alcohol, traditional tobacco, or other drugs, however.

“Physicians of all subspecialties, especially those of obstetrics-gynecology and pediatrics, need to increase the implementation of screening for past or current e-cigarette use in at-risk patients,” Ms. Izhakoff and coauthors concluded. “Further research regarding the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes is warranted.”

Dr. Wylie coauthored another study related to this topic that was published online May 24, 2021, in the Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine.

The researchers examined birth weights of children whose mothers use e-cigarettes alone, those whose mothers used both e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes, and those whose mothers smoked conventional cigarettes only. Their estimates were imprecise, but signaled that e-cigarette use may reduce birth weight. The use of e-cigarettes alone appeared to have less of an impact on birth weight than the dual use of conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes did.

Dr. Wylie cautioned that outcomes like birth weight are “pretty crude measures of whether an exposure is okay or not in pregnancy. Many of these toxins that we know that are in the aerosols can cause harm, but they may not be reflected in the absolute value of the birth weight.”

In addition, clinicians should avoid focusing on the wrong question when caring for patients.

“I think the wrong question is: Is vaping safer than smoking?” Dr. Wylie said in an interview. “Metals are going into your lungs. Plastics are going into your lungs. It is hard for me to think that we are going to identify that as our champion smoking cessation strategy in pregnancy.”
 

Rapidly changing landscape

Answering the question of which is safer is a challenge anyway because researchers likely have incomplete information about who vapes, who smokes, and who does both.

Still, the new research illustrates that “people are starting to think about this and beginning to do some analysis that is really hypothesis generating at this point,” Dr. Wylie said. Such studies may prompt clinicians to ask their patients about e-cigarette use. “Marijuana is sort of a similar thing where patients’ perception of safety, because things are legal, can lead to use during pregnancy without ... letting their care teams know,” she said. “Things are changing so rapidly in terms of what’s available to people to use that we need to stay on top of that as obstetricians and ask the right questions and try to understand what the risks are and potential benefits.”

Dr. Wylie is an obstetric consultant to the New England Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit, which is where she heard pediatricians discussing widespread e-cigarette use among youth. It occurred to her that some of these teens eventually would be seeing obstetricians. She also saw parallels to prior research she conducted that focused on household air pollution or cooking from wood-burning fires in Africa.

“What is frightening, I think, about these electronic cigarettes is that you’re heating this liquid to extraordinarily high temperatures to create the vapor,” and the extreme heat vaporizes plastics and metals as well as nicotine, Dr. Wylie said.

An ACOG committee opinion discusses approaches to smoking and vaping cessation such as counseling, behavioral therapy, and medication.

The publication also lists a host of elements have been isolated from vape aerosol, including “carbonyl compounds (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and acrolein); volatile organic compounds (benzene and toluene); nitrosamines; particulate matter; and heavy metals such as copper, lead, zinc, and tin.”

In addition to the nicotine in e-cigarette liquids, which is harmful in itself, there is “all of this other company that it keeps,” including solvent byproducts, known carcinogens, and lung irritants, Dr. Wylie said. Fine particulate matter “can land in the small airways and cause inflammation, even translocate into the systemic circulation and cause systemic inflammation.”

The use of flavoring “likely alters perceptions of harm” and contributes to the popularity of vaping, Dr. Wylie noted. At the same time, the use of flavoring also has little regulatory oversight. Flavors usually are approved for marketing based on safety for ingestion, but that may not translate into safety for inhalation.
 

Parsing the health effects

People who vape have increased cough, wheezing, and phlegm production, compared with people who do not vape. Vaping also may worsen underlying lung disease like asthma. Lung function on spirometry decreases after e-cigarette use, studies have shown.

In 2019, researchers described e-cigarette or vaping product use–related acute lung injury (EVALI), which has caused more than 60 deaths in the United States. The condition may be related to vitamin E acetate, a component that had been used in some liquids used by patients with EVALI.

And the nicotine in e-cigarettes can accelerate atherogenesis and affect blood pressure, heart rate, and arterial stiffness.

Initially introduced as a smoking cessation tool, e-cigarettes now often are used on their own or in addition to cigarettes, rather than strictly for smoking cessation.

A Cochrane review suggests that e-cigarettes may be more effective than other approaches to smoking cessation. But “the effect is modest at best,” Dr. Wylie said. Among 100 people attempting to quit cigarette smoking, there might four to six more quitters with the use of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation intervention, compared with other approaches.

Animal models provide other reasons for caution. One experiment in mice showed that exposure to e-cigarette aerosol impaired implantation and fetal health. The results suggest “that there might be some negative impacts across generations,” Dr. Wylie said.

Another study has suggested the possibility that women who currently use e-cigarettes may have slightly diminished fecundability. The results were not statistically significant, but the study “gives us pause about whether there could be some impact on early pregnancy and fertility,” Dr. Wylie said.

In mouse models, prenatal exposure to e-cigarette aerosol has decreased fetal weight and length, altered neurodevelopment and neuroregulatory gene expression, and increased proinflammatory cytokines. E-cigarette aerosol also has caused birth defects in zebrafish and facial clefting in frogs. Whether and how these data relate to human pregnancy is unclear.

While e-cigarette ads may convey a sense of style and harmlessness, clinicians have reasons to worry about the effects. “We have to be a little bit more cautious when we are talking about this with our patients,” Dr. Wylie said.

Dr. Wylie had no relevant financial disclosures. She is a Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine board member and receives grant support related to research of household air pollution and pregnancy, prenatal pesticide exposure, preeclampsia in low income settings, and malaria during pregnancy. Ms. Izhakoff and coauthors had no disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Researchers are trying to understand how e-cigarette use affects pregnancy and birth outcomes. This question may become more relevant as younger vapers, among whom the devices gained considerable popularity, start having children.

Limited emerging data from animal experiments and human epidemiologic studies suggest that vaping may have negative effects on fertility and pregnancy. “Even if these impacts are less severe than conventional smoking, we really should be thinking about alternate options that may be safer for our patients than inhalation of this aerosol,” said Blair J. Wylie, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

Dr. Wylie reviewed what is known about vaping, including chemicals other than nicotine that have been detected in vape aerosols, and pregnancy at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“There’s a lot we don’t know,” she said. “These products were only introduced recently, in 2003. They are marketed aggressively to our youth and have gained tremendous popularity among that population. And it’s only a matter of time, I think, before we see a lot of use in our own patient population.”

In a separate study presented at the ACOG meeting, Nicole Izhakoff, a researcher at Florida International University, Miami, and colleagues evaluated the association between e-cigarette use during pregnancy and unfavorable birth outcomes, such as preterm birth, low birth weight, or extended hospital stay for the newborn.

The investigators used 2016-2017 survey data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. In all, 71,940 women completed the survey, including 859 who reported e-cigarette use during pregnancy.

After adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, insurance, maternal education, prenatal care, abuse during pregnancy, and complications during pregnancy, the researchers estimated that the odds of an unfavorable birth outcome were 62% greater among women who used e-cigarettes during pregnancy, compared with those who did not.

The researchers lacked information about simultaneous use of alcohol, traditional tobacco, or other drugs, however.

“Physicians of all subspecialties, especially those of obstetrics-gynecology and pediatrics, need to increase the implementation of screening for past or current e-cigarette use in at-risk patients,” Ms. Izhakoff and coauthors concluded. “Further research regarding the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes is warranted.”

Dr. Wylie coauthored another study related to this topic that was published online May 24, 2021, in the Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine.

The researchers examined birth weights of children whose mothers use e-cigarettes alone, those whose mothers used both e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes, and those whose mothers smoked conventional cigarettes only. Their estimates were imprecise, but signaled that e-cigarette use may reduce birth weight. The use of e-cigarettes alone appeared to have less of an impact on birth weight than the dual use of conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes did.

Dr. Wylie cautioned that outcomes like birth weight are “pretty crude measures of whether an exposure is okay or not in pregnancy. Many of these toxins that we know that are in the aerosols can cause harm, but they may not be reflected in the absolute value of the birth weight.”

In addition, clinicians should avoid focusing on the wrong question when caring for patients.

“I think the wrong question is: Is vaping safer than smoking?” Dr. Wylie said in an interview. “Metals are going into your lungs. Plastics are going into your lungs. It is hard for me to think that we are going to identify that as our champion smoking cessation strategy in pregnancy.”
 

Rapidly changing landscape

Answering the question of which is safer is a challenge anyway because researchers likely have incomplete information about who vapes, who smokes, and who does both.

Still, the new research illustrates that “people are starting to think about this and beginning to do some analysis that is really hypothesis generating at this point,” Dr. Wylie said. Such studies may prompt clinicians to ask their patients about e-cigarette use. “Marijuana is sort of a similar thing where patients’ perception of safety, because things are legal, can lead to use during pregnancy without ... letting their care teams know,” she said. “Things are changing so rapidly in terms of what’s available to people to use that we need to stay on top of that as obstetricians and ask the right questions and try to understand what the risks are and potential benefits.”

Dr. Wylie is an obstetric consultant to the New England Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit, which is where she heard pediatricians discussing widespread e-cigarette use among youth. It occurred to her that some of these teens eventually would be seeing obstetricians. She also saw parallels to prior research she conducted that focused on household air pollution or cooking from wood-burning fires in Africa.

“What is frightening, I think, about these electronic cigarettes is that you’re heating this liquid to extraordinarily high temperatures to create the vapor,” and the extreme heat vaporizes plastics and metals as well as nicotine, Dr. Wylie said.

An ACOG committee opinion discusses approaches to smoking and vaping cessation such as counseling, behavioral therapy, and medication.

The publication also lists a host of elements have been isolated from vape aerosol, including “carbonyl compounds (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and acrolein); volatile organic compounds (benzene and toluene); nitrosamines; particulate matter; and heavy metals such as copper, lead, zinc, and tin.”

In addition to the nicotine in e-cigarette liquids, which is harmful in itself, there is “all of this other company that it keeps,” including solvent byproducts, known carcinogens, and lung irritants, Dr. Wylie said. Fine particulate matter “can land in the small airways and cause inflammation, even translocate into the systemic circulation and cause systemic inflammation.”

The use of flavoring “likely alters perceptions of harm” and contributes to the popularity of vaping, Dr. Wylie noted. At the same time, the use of flavoring also has little regulatory oversight. Flavors usually are approved for marketing based on safety for ingestion, but that may not translate into safety for inhalation.
 

Parsing the health effects

People who vape have increased cough, wheezing, and phlegm production, compared with people who do not vape. Vaping also may worsen underlying lung disease like asthma. Lung function on spirometry decreases after e-cigarette use, studies have shown.

In 2019, researchers described e-cigarette or vaping product use–related acute lung injury (EVALI), which has caused more than 60 deaths in the United States. The condition may be related to vitamin E acetate, a component that had been used in some liquids used by patients with EVALI.

And the nicotine in e-cigarettes can accelerate atherogenesis and affect blood pressure, heart rate, and arterial stiffness.

Initially introduced as a smoking cessation tool, e-cigarettes now often are used on their own or in addition to cigarettes, rather than strictly for smoking cessation.

A Cochrane review suggests that e-cigarettes may be more effective than other approaches to smoking cessation. But “the effect is modest at best,” Dr. Wylie said. Among 100 people attempting to quit cigarette smoking, there might four to six more quitters with the use of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation intervention, compared with other approaches.

Animal models provide other reasons for caution. One experiment in mice showed that exposure to e-cigarette aerosol impaired implantation and fetal health. The results suggest “that there might be some negative impacts across generations,” Dr. Wylie said.

Another study has suggested the possibility that women who currently use e-cigarettes may have slightly diminished fecundability. The results were not statistically significant, but the study “gives us pause about whether there could be some impact on early pregnancy and fertility,” Dr. Wylie said.

In mouse models, prenatal exposure to e-cigarette aerosol has decreased fetal weight and length, altered neurodevelopment and neuroregulatory gene expression, and increased proinflammatory cytokines. E-cigarette aerosol also has caused birth defects in zebrafish and facial clefting in frogs. Whether and how these data relate to human pregnancy is unclear.

While e-cigarette ads may convey a sense of style and harmlessness, clinicians have reasons to worry about the effects. “We have to be a little bit more cautious when we are talking about this with our patients,” Dr. Wylie said.

Dr. Wylie had no relevant financial disclosures. She is a Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine board member and receives grant support related to research of household air pollution and pregnancy, prenatal pesticide exposure, preeclampsia in low income settings, and malaria during pregnancy. Ms. Izhakoff and coauthors had no disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Researchers are trying to understand how e-cigarette use affects pregnancy and birth outcomes. This question may become more relevant as younger vapers, among whom the devices gained considerable popularity, start having children.

Limited emerging data from animal experiments and human epidemiologic studies suggest that vaping may have negative effects on fertility and pregnancy. “Even if these impacts are less severe than conventional smoking, we really should be thinking about alternate options that may be safer for our patients than inhalation of this aerosol,” said Blair J. Wylie, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

Dr. Wylie reviewed what is known about vaping, including chemicals other than nicotine that have been detected in vape aerosols, and pregnancy at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“There’s a lot we don’t know,” she said. “These products were only introduced recently, in 2003. They are marketed aggressively to our youth and have gained tremendous popularity among that population. And it’s only a matter of time, I think, before we see a lot of use in our own patient population.”

In a separate study presented at the ACOG meeting, Nicole Izhakoff, a researcher at Florida International University, Miami, and colleagues evaluated the association between e-cigarette use during pregnancy and unfavorable birth outcomes, such as preterm birth, low birth weight, or extended hospital stay for the newborn.

The investigators used 2016-2017 survey data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. In all, 71,940 women completed the survey, including 859 who reported e-cigarette use during pregnancy.

After adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, insurance, maternal education, prenatal care, abuse during pregnancy, and complications during pregnancy, the researchers estimated that the odds of an unfavorable birth outcome were 62% greater among women who used e-cigarettes during pregnancy, compared with those who did not.

The researchers lacked information about simultaneous use of alcohol, traditional tobacco, or other drugs, however.

“Physicians of all subspecialties, especially those of obstetrics-gynecology and pediatrics, need to increase the implementation of screening for past or current e-cigarette use in at-risk patients,” Ms. Izhakoff and coauthors concluded. “Further research regarding the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes is warranted.”

Dr. Wylie coauthored another study related to this topic that was published online May 24, 2021, in the Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine.

The researchers examined birth weights of children whose mothers use e-cigarettes alone, those whose mothers used both e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes, and those whose mothers smoked conventional cigarettes only. Their estimates were imprecise, but signaled that e-cigarette use may reduce birth weight. The use of e-cigarettes alone appeared to have less of an impact on birth weight than the dual use of conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes did.

Dr. Wylie cautioned that outcomes like birth weight are “pretty crude measures of whether an exposure is okay or not in pregnancy. Many of these toxins that we know that are in the aerosols can cause harm, but they may not be reflected in the absolute value of the birth weight.”

In addition, clinicians should avoid focusing on the wrong question when caring for patients.

“I think the wrong question is: Is vaping safer than smoking?” Dr. Wylie said in an interview. “Metals are going into your lungs. Plastics are going into your lungs. It is hard for me to think that we are going to identify that as our champion smoking cessation strategy in pregnancy.”
 

Rapidly changing landscape

Answering the question of which is safer is a challenge anyway because researchers likely have incomplete information about who vapes, who smokes, and who does both.

Still, the new research illustrates that “people are starting to think about this and beginning to do some analysis that is really hypothesis generating at this point,” Dr. Wylie said. Such studies may prompt clinicians to ask their patients about e-cigarette use. “Marijuana is sort of a similar thing where patients’ perception of safety, because things are legal, can lead to use during pregnancy without ... letting their care teams know,” she said. “Things are changing so rapidly in terms of what’s available to people to use that we need to stay on top of that as obstetricians and ask the right questions and try to understand what the risks are and potential benefits.”

Dr. Wylie is an obstetric consultant to the New England Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit, which is where she heard pediatricians discussing widespread e-cigarette use among youth. It occurred to her that some of these teens eventually would be seeing obstetricians. She also saw parallels to prior research she conducted that focused on household air pollution or cooking from wood-burning fires in Africa.

“What is frightening, I think, about these electronic cigarettes is that you’re heating this liquid to extraordinarily high temperatures to create the vapor,” and the extreme heat vaporizes plastics and metals as well as nicotine, Dr. Wylie said.

An ACOG committee opinion discusses approaches to smoking and vaping cessation such as counseling, behavioral therapy, and medication.

The publication also lists a host of elements have been isolated from vape aerosol, including “carbonyl compounds (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and acrolein); volatile organic compounds (benzene and toluene); nitrosamines; particulate matter; and heavy metals such as copper, lead, zinc, and tin.”

In addition to the nicotine in e-cigarette liquids, which is harmful in itself, there is “all of this other company that it keeps,” including solvent byproducts, known carcinogens, and lung irritants, Dr. Wylie said. Fine particulate matter “can land in the small airways and cause inflammation, even translocate into the systemic circulation and cause systemic inflammation.”

The use of flavoring “likely alters perceptions of harm” and contributes to the popularity of vaping, Dr. Wylie noted. At the same time, the use of flavoring also has little regulatory oversight. Flavors usually are approved for marketing based on safety for ingestion, but that may not translate into safety for inhalation.
 

Parsing the health effects

People who vape have increased cough, wheezing, and phlegm production, compared with people who do not vape. Vaping also may worsen underlying lung disease like asthma. Lung function on spirometry decreases after e-cigarette use, studies have shown.

In 2019, researchers described e-cigarette or vaping product use–related acute lung injury (EVALI), which has caused more than 60 deaths in the United States. The condition may be related to vitamin E acetate, a component that had been used in some liquids used by patients with EVALI.

And the nicotine in e-cigarettes can accelerate atherogenesis and affect blood pressure, heart rate, and arterial stiffness.

Initially introduced as a smoking cessation tool, e-cigarettes now often are used on their own or in addition to cigarettes, rather than strictly for smoking cessation.

A Cochrane review suggests that e-cigarettes may be more effective than other approaches to smoking cessation. But “the effect is modest at best,” Dr. Wylie said. Among 100 people attempting to quit cigarette smoking, there might four to six more quitters with the use of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation intervention, compared with other approaches.

Animal models provide other reasons for caution. One experiment in mice showed that exposure to e-cigarette aerosol impaired implantation and fetal health. The results suggest “that there might be some negative impacts across generations,” Dr. Wylie said.

Another study has suggested the possibility that women who currently use e-cigarettes may have slightly diminished fecundability. The results were not statistically significant, but the study “gives us pause about whether there could be some impact on early pregnancy and fertility,” Dr. Wylie said.

In mouse models, prenatal exposure to e-cigarette aerosol has decreased fetal weight and length, altered neurodevelopment and neuroregulatory gene expression, and increased proinflammatory cytokines. E-cigarette aerosol also has caused birth defects in zebrafish and facial clefting in frogs. Whether and how these data relate to human pregnancy is unclear.

While e-cigarette ads may convey a sense of style and harmlessness, clinicians have reasons to worry about the effects. “We have to be a little bit more cautious when we are talking about this with our patients,” Dr. Wylie said.

Dr. Wylie had no relevant financial disclosures. She is a Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine board member and receives grant support related to research of household air pollution and pregnancy, prenatal pesticide exposure, preeclampsia in low income settings, and malaria during pregnancy. Ms. Izhakoff and coauthors had no disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the effectiveness of a person-centered intervention (comprising personalized and cocreated treatment plans to promote physical activity) for individuals with chronic widespread pain when delivered with digital eHealth support compared with standard telephone follow-up.

Design. Single-blinded multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Settings and participants. Participants with chronic widespread pain (CWP) who had participated in a pain management program from 2010–16 at 5 primary health care rehabilitation centers in 5 cities or towns in the western part of Sweden were invited to join the study between March 2018 and April 2019 via letter providing information about the intervention. The letter was followed by a phone call 1-2 weeks later to screen for inclusion and exclusion criteria and interest in participating. Additional participants were invited to participate via a newspaper advertisement in 1 of the 5 cities.

Inclusion criteria were Swedish-speaking persons aged 20–65 years with CWP (defined as having pain in both sides of the body, pain above and below the waist, and axial pain for at least 3 months). Exclusion criteria included having other severe somatic or psychiatric disorders, dominating causes of pain other than CWP, or other severe disease interfering with the ability to be physically active, pregnancy, not having access to a smartphone or a computer, inability to speak or understand Swedish, ongoing physiotherapy treatment, and already exercising regularly. Of 716 people initially assessed for eligibility, 425 completed telephone screening, and 139 were randomized (using block randomization) to either the intervention arm (n = 69) or the active control arm (n = 70). Due to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind the participants or the physiotherapist to group allocation. All participants provided written informed consent.

The 2 groups underwent the same first individual meeting with a physiotherapist to cocreate a health plan with physical activities, and, if needed, stress management, based on each participant’s individual preferences, obstacles, goals, and resources. The difference between the groups was the type of follow-up support. Participants in the intervention group had 1 follow-up meeting with the physiotherapist a week after the initial meeting (to review and adjust the health plan as needed) and thereafter were supported through a digital e-health platform (accessed via the participant’s smartphone or computer) during the 6-month follow-up period. Participants were encouraged to access the platform once a week to answer questions regarding their health, and the extent to which they had been able to manage their health plan during the previous week. In addition, the participant and physiotherapist could communicate via the platform as needed. Participants in the active control group had 1 follow-up phone call with the physiotherapist 1 month after the initial meeting (similarly to review and adjust the health plan as needed), and no further contact or support from the physiotherapist during the 6-month follow-up period.

Measures and analysis. The primary outcome measure was pain intensity during the previous week assessed with a 0–100 subscale from the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ-pain). Secondary outcome measures included overall health status (via FIQ-total with 10 subscales), global fatigue (via FIQ-fatigue subscale), multidimensional fatigue (via Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, a 20-item questionnaire rated on a 1-5 Likert scale), clinical manifestations of stress (via Stress and Crisis Inventory, a 35-item questionnaire rated on a 0-4 Likert scale), self-efficacy (via General Self-Efficacy Scale, a 10-item questionnaire rated on a 1-4 Likert scale), health-related quality of life (via Short Form 36, specifically the Physical Component Summary composite score), leisure-time physical activity (via Leisure Time Physical Activity Instrument), and physical function (via 1-min chair-stand test). Additional demographic data on age, pain localization, pharmacological treatment, tobacco use, country of birth, level of education, family status, economic status, work status, sick-leave, and disability pension were collected via a questionnaire.

Between-group differences for changes in outcomes from baseline to 6-month follow-up were calculated using the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous data, and Pearson’s χ² or Fisher’s exact test for categorical data. Significance level was set at 5% with no adjustment for multiple comparisons. All analyses were made according to intention-to-treat by originally assigned group; missing cases were not included in the analysis.

Main results. Participants consisted of primarily middle-age, middle income, educated (> 12 years of education) females, with > 60% of participants working at least part-time (between-group differences in baseline data and demographic data not detailed in the article). A total of 29 participants were lost to follow-up. In the intervention group, lost-to-follow up participants were older, performed fewer hours of physical activity, and had lower mental fatigue at baseline, compared with those who were lost to follow-up in the active control group.

In between-group analyses, there were no significant differences in the primary outcome (pain intensity) from baseline to 6-month follow-up. The only significant difference in secondary outcomes was seen in global fatigue – the active control group improved significantly compared with the intervention group (P = .004).

In the intervention group, 87% of participants used the digital platform. Among these users, 35% contacted the physiotherapist (75% of these communications were health- or study-related issues, 25% were issues with the digital platform), 33% were contacted by the physiotherapist (96% of these communications were about the health plan and physical activity), and 32% never had any contact with the physiotherapist. There was a significant difference in the primary outcome (pain intensity) from baseline to 6-month follow-up between platform users and non-users (P = .03, mean change [SD] 3.8 [19.66] mm vs –20.5 [6.36] mm, respectively).

Conclusion. No significant differences were found between the groups after 6 months (except for a significant decrease in global fatigue in the active control group compared with the intervention group). Further development of interventions to support persons with CWP to maintain regular physical activity is needed.

Commentary

Chronic widespread pain is a disorder characterized by diffuse body pain persisting for at least 3 months.^1-2 It has been associated with lost work productivity, mental ill health, and reduced quality of life. The development of clinically effective and cost-effective pain management strategies for CWP is challenging given the syndrome complexity and heterogenous symptomology. Thus, multimodal, multidisciplinary management is widely advocated, often a combination of education and self-management, with integration of physical, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments.^1-3 Of note, physical exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy are 2 non-pharmacological treatments that hold some promise based on available evidence.

The pervasiveness of technology in nearly all aspects of daily life has corresponded with the development of implementation of a wide range of technology-based interventions for health purposes.⁴ Examples of electronic health or eHealth modalities include internet-based, telephone supported, interactive voice-response, videoconferencing, mobile apps, and virtual reality. While the use of technology in chronic pain management interventions has increased in recent years, the literature is still limited, heterogenous, and provides limited evidence on the efficacy of eHealth/digital interventions, let alone which specific modalities are most effective.^4-9

This study adds to the literature as a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a person-centered intervention for individuals with CWP delivered with digital eHealth support compared with standard telephone follow-up. Results showed no significant difference in the primary outcome of pain intensity and nearly all secondary outcomes between the intervention group (supported by the digital platform) and the active control group (supported by a follow-up phone call). Further, intervention participants who did not use the platform improved significantly more in pain intensity than those who used the platform.

While these results imply that digital support does not contribute to improvements in the outcomes measured, it is important these findings are interpreted with caution given the limitations of the study design as well as limitations with the intervention itself. Importantly, while this study was designed as a randomized controlled trial, the authors indicated that it was not possible to blind the participants or the physiotherapist to group allocation, which may have impacted their behaviors while in the study. In addition, as the authors note, an intervention aimed at increasing physical activity should ideally include an objective measure of activity and this was lacking in this study. The use of an actigraphy device for example would have provided objective, continuous data on movement and could have helped assess an important outcome measure – whether participants reached their physical activity goals or had increased their overall physical activity. In the analysis, there was no adjustment for multiple comparisons or use of imputation methods to handle missing values. Further, it was unclear whether differences in baseline data were evaluated and taken into consideration in between-group analyses. Lastly, results are only attributable to the eHealth mode used in this study (digital web-based with limited mechanisms of behavior change and engagement built-in) and thus should not be generalized to all digital/eHealth interventions persons with CWP.

Applications for Clinical Practice

While the results of this study failed to demonstrate significant differences between a physical activity-promoting intervention for persons with CWP with digital follow-up vs telephone follow-up, it remains important to consider person-centered principles when offering CWP management support. In this spirit, clinicians should consider a management approach that takes into account the individual’s knowledge, resources, and barriers, and also actively involves the patient in treatment planning to enhance the patient’s self-efficacy to manage their health. In addition, individual preference for a specific (or combination of) eHealth/digital modality should be considered and used to guide a comprehensive management plan, as well as used as a complementary modality to face-to-face care/support.

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the effectiveness of a person-centered intervention (comprising personalized and cocreated treatment plans to promote physical activity) for individuals with chronic widespread pain when delivered with digital eHealth support compared with standard telephone follow-up.

Design. Single-blinded multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Settings and participants. Participants with chronic widespread pain (CWP) who had participated in a pain management program from 2010–16 at 5 primary health care rehabilitation centers in 5 cities or towns in the western part of Sweden were invited to join the study between March 2018 and April 2019 via letter providing information about the intervention. The letter was followed by a phone call 1-2 weeks later to screen for inclusion and exclusion criteria and interest in participating. Additional participants were invited to participate via a newspaper advertisement in 1 of the 5 cities.

Inclusion criteria were Swedish-speaking persons aged 20–65 years with CWP (defined as having pain in both sides of the body, pain above and below the waist, and axial pain for at least 3 months). Exclusion criteria included having other severe somatic or psychiatric disorders, dominating causes of pain other than CWP, or other severe disease interfering with the ability to be physically active, pregnancy, not having access to a smartphone or a computer, inability to speak or understand Swedish, ongoing physiotherapy treatment, and already exercising regularly. Of 716 people initially assessed for eligibility, 425 completed telephone screening, and 139 were randomized (using block randomization) to either the intervention arm (n = 69) or the active control arm (n = 70). Due to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind the participants or the physiotherapist to group allocation. All participants provided written informed consent.

The 2 groups underwent the same first individual meeting with a physiotherapist to cocreate a health plan with physical activities, and, if needed, stress management, based on each participant’s individual preferences, obstacles, goals, and resources. The difference between the groups was the type of follow-up support. Participants in the intervention group had 1 follow-up meeting with the physiotherapist a week after the initial meeting (to review and adjust the health plan as needed) and thereafter were supported through a digital e-health platform (accessed via the participant’s smartphone or computer) during the 6-month follow-up period. Participants were encouraged to access the platform once a week to answer questions regarding their health, and the extent to which they had been able to manage their health plan during the previous week. In addition, the participant and physiotherapist could communicate via the platform as needed. Participants in the active control group had 1 follow-up phone call with the physiotherapist 1 month after the initial meeting (similarly to review and adjust the health plan as needed), and no further contact or support from the physiotherapist during the 6-month follow-up period.

Measures and analysis. The primary outcome measure was pain intensity during the previous week assessed with a 0–100 subscale from the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ-pain). Secondary outcome measures included overall health status (via FIQ-total with 10 subscales), global fatigue (via FIQ-fatigue subscale), multidimensional fatigue (via Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, a 20-item questionnaire rated on a 1-5 Likert scale), clinical manifestations of stress (via Stress and Crisis Inventory, a 35-item questionnaire rated on a 0-4 Likert scale), self-efficacy (via General Self-Efficacy Scale, a 10-item questionnaire rated on a 1-4 Likert scale), health-related quality of life (via Short Form 36, specifically the Physical Component Summary composite score), leisure-time physical activity (via Leisure Time Physical Activity Instrument), and physical function (via 1-min chair-stand test). Additional demographic data on age, pain localization, pharmacological treatment, tobacco use, country of birth, level of education, family status, economic status, work status, sick-leave, and disability pension were collected via a questionnaire.

Between-group differences for changes in outcomes from baseline to 6-month follow-up were calculated using the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous data, and Pearson’s χ² or Fisher’s exact test for categorical data. Significance level was set at 5% with no adjustment for multiple comparisons. All analyses were made according to intention-to-treat by originally assigned group; missing cases were not included in the analysis.

Main results. Participants consisted of primarily middle-age, middle income, educated (> 12 years of education) females, with > 60% of participants working at least part-time (between-group differences in baseline data and demographic data not detailed in the article). A total of 29 participants were lost to follow-up. In the intervention group, lost-to-follow up participants were older, performed fewer hours of physical activity, and had lower mental fatigue at baseline, compared with those who were lost to follow-up in the active control group.

In between-group analyses, there were no significant differences in the primary outcome (pain intensity) from baseline to 6-month follow-up. The only significant difference in secondary outcomes was seen in global fatigue – the active control group improved significantly compared with the intervention group (P = .004).

In the intervention group, 87% of participants used the digital platform. Among these users, 35% contacted the physiotherapist (75% of these communications were health- or study-related issues, 25% were issues with the digital platform), 33% were contacted by the physiotherapist (96% of these communications were about the health plan and physical activity), and 32% never had any contact with the physiotherapist. There was a significant difference in the primary outcome (pain intensity) from baseline to 6-month follow-up between platform users and non-users (P = .03, mean change [SD] 3.8 [19.66] mm vs –20.5 [6.36] mm, respectively).

Conclusion. No significant differences were found between the groups after 6 months (except for a significant decrease in global fatigue in the active control group compared with the intervention group). Further development of interventions to support persons with CWP to maintain regular physical activity is needed.

Commentary

Chronic widespread pain is a disorder characterized by diffuse body pain persisting for at least 3 months.^1-2 It has been associated with lost work productivity, mental ill health, and reduced quality of life. The development of clinically effective and cost-effective pain management strategies for CWP is challenging given the syndrome complexity and heterogenous symptomology. Thus, multimodal, multidisciplinary management is widely advocated, often a combination of education and self-management, with integration of physical, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments.^1-3 Of note, physical exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy are 2 non-pharmacological treatments that hold some promise based on available evidence.

The pervasiveness of technology in nearly all aspects of daily life has corresponded with the development of implementation of a wide range of technology-based interventions for health purposes.⁴ Examples of electronic health or eHealth modalities include internet-based, telephone supported, interactive voice-response, videoconferencing, mobile apps, and virtual reality. While the use of technology in chronic pain management interventions has increased in recent years, the literature is still limited, heterogenous, and provides limited evidence on the efficacy of eHealth/digital interventions, let alone which specific modalities are most effective.^4-9

This study adds to the literature as a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a person-centered intervention for individuals with CWP delivered with digital eHealth support compared with standard telephone follow-up. Results showed no significant difference in the primary outcome of pain intensity and nearly all secondary outcomes between the intervention group (supported by the digital platform) and the active control group (supported by a follow-up phone call). Further, intervention participants who did not use the platform improved significantly more in pain intensity than those who used the platform.

While these results imply that digital support does not contribute to improvements in the outcomes measured, it is important these findings are interpreted with caution given the limitations of the study design as well as limitations with the intervention itself. Importantly, while this study was designed as a randomized controlled trial, the authors indicated that it was not possible to blind the participants or the physiotherapist to group allocation, which may have impacted their behaviors while in the study. In addition, as the authors note, an intervention aimed at increasing physical activity should ideally include an objective measure of activity and this was lacking in this study. The use of an actigraphy device for example would have provided objective, continuous data on movement and could have helped assess an important outcome measure – whether participants reached their physical activity goals or had increased their overall physical activity. In the analysis, there was no adjustment for multiple comparisons or use of imputation methods to handle missing values. Further, it was unclear whether differences in baseline data were evaluated and taken into consideration in between-group analyses. Lastly, results are only attributable to the eHealth mode used in this study (digital web-based with limited mechanisms of behavior change and engagement built-in) and thus should not be generalized to all digital/eHealth interventions persons with CWP.

Applications for Clinical Practice

While the results of this study failed to demonstrate significant differences between a physical activity-promoting intervention for persons with CWP with digital follow-up vs telephone follow-up, it remains important to consider person-centered principles when offering CWP management support. In this spirit, clinicians should consider a management approach that takes into account the individual’s knowledge, resources, and barriers, and also actively involves the patient in treatment planning to enhance the patient’s self-efficacy to manage their health. In addition, individual preference for a specific (or combination of) eHealth/digital modality should be considered and used to guide a comprehensive management plan, as well as used as a complementary modality to face-to-face care/support.

Study Overview

Objective. To determine the effectiveness of a person-centered intervention (comprising personalized and cocreated treatment plans to promote physical activity) for individuals with chronic widespread pain when delivered with digital eHealth support compared with standard telephone follow-up.

Design. Single-blinded multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Settings and participants. Participants with chronic widespread pain (CWP) who had participated in a pain management program from 2010–16 at 5 primary health care rehabilitation centers in 5 cities or towns in the western part of Sweden were invited to join the study between March 2018 and April 2019 via letter providing information about the intervention. The letter was followed by a phone call 1-2 weeks later to screen for inclusion and exclusion criteria and interest in participating. Additional participants were invited to participate via a newspaper advertisement in 1 of the 5 cities.

Inclusion criteria were Swedish-speaking persons aged 20–65 years with CWP (defined as having pain in both sides of the body, pain above and below the waist, and axial pain for at least 3 months). Exclusion criteria included having other severe somatic or psychiatric disorders, dominating causes of pain other than CWP, or other severe disease interfering with the ability to be physically active, pregnancy, not having access to a smartphone or a computer, inability to speak or understand Swedish, ongoing physiotherapy treatment, and already exercising regularly. Of 716 people initially assessed for eligibility, 425 completed telephone screening, and 139 were randomized (using block randomization) to either the intervention arm (n = 69) or the active control arm (n = 70). Due to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind the participants or the physiotherapist to group allocation. All participants provided written informed consent.

The 2 groups underwent the same first individual meeting with a physiotherapist to cocreate a health plan with physical activities, and, if needed, stress management, based on each participant’s individual preferences, obstacles, goals, and resources. The difference between the groups was the type of follow-up support. Participants in the intervention group had 1 follow-up meeting with the physiotherapist a week after the initial meeting (to review and adjust the health plan as needed) and thereafter were supported through a digital e-health platform (accessed via the participant’s smartphone or computer) during the 6-month follow-up period. Participants were encouraged to access the platform once a week to answer questions regarding their health, and the extent to which they had been able to manage their health plan during the previous week. In addition, the participant and physiotherapist could communicate via the platform as needed. Participants in the active control group had 1 follow-up phone call with the physiotherapist 1 month after the initial meeting (similarly to review and adjust the health plan as needed), and no further contact or support from the physiotherapist during the 6-month follow-up period.

Measures and analysis. The primary outcome measure was pain intensity during the previous week assessed with a 0–100 subscale from the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ-pain). Secondary outcome measures included overall health status (via FIQ-total with 10 subscales), global fatigue (via FIQ-fatigue subscale), multidimensional fatigue (via Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, a 20-item questionnaire rated on a 1-5 Likert scale), clinical manifestations of stress (via Stress and Crisis Inventory, a 35-item questionnaire rated on a 0-4 Likert scale), self-efficacy (via General Self-Efficacy Scale, a 10-item questionnaire rated on a 1-4 Likert scale), health-related quality of life (via Short Form 36, specifically the Physical Component Summary composite score), leisure-time physical activity (via Leisure Time Physical Activity Instrument), and physical function (via 1-min chair-stand test). Additional demographic data on age, pain localization, pharmacological treatment, tobacco use, country of birth, level of education, family status, economic status, work status, sick-leave, and disability pension were collected via a questionnaire.

Between-group differences for changes in outcomes from baseline to 6-month follow-up were calculated using the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous data, and Pearson’s χ² or Fisher’s exact test for categorical data. Significance level was set at 5% with no adjustment for multiple comparisons. All analyses were made according to intention-to-treat by originally assigned group; missing cases were not included in the analysis.

Main results. Participants consisted of primarily middle-age, middle income, educated (> 12 years of education) females, with > 60% of participants working at least part-time (between-group differences in baseline data and demographic data not detailed in the article). A total of 29 participants were lost to follow-up. In the intervention group, lost-to-follow up participants were older, performed fewer hours of physical activity, and had lower mental fatigue at baseline, compared with those who were lost to follow-up in the active control group.

In between-group analyses, there were no significant differences in the primary outcome (pain intensity) from baseline to 6-month follow-up. The only significant difference in secondary outcomes was seen in global fatigue – the active control group improved significantly compared with the intervention group (P = .004).

In the intervention group, 87% of participants used the digital platform. Among these users, 35% contacted the physiotherapist (75% of these communications were health- or study-related issues, 25% were issues with the digital platform), 33% were contacted by the physiotherapist (96% of these communications were about the health plan and physical activity), and 32% never had any contact with the physiotherapist. There was a significant difference in the primary outcome (pain intensity) from baseline to 6-month follow-up between platform users and non-users (P = .03, mean change [SD] 3.8 [19.66] mm vs –20.5 [6.36] mm, respectively).

Conclusion. No significant differences were found between the groups after 6 months (except for a significant decrease in global fatigue in the active control group compared with the intervention group). Further development of interventions to support persons with CWP to maintain regular physical activity is needed.

Commentary

Chronic widespread pain is a disorder characterized by diffuse body pain persisting for at least 3 months.^1-2 It has been associated with lost work productivity, mental ill health, and reduced quality of life. The development of clinically effective and cost-effective pain management strategies for CWP is challenging given the syndrome complexity and heterogenous symptomology. Thus, multimodal, multidisciplinary management is widely advocated, often a combination of education and self-management, with integration of physical, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments.^1-3 Of note, physical exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy are 2 non-pharmacological treatments that hold some promise based on available evidence.

The pervasiveness of technology in nearly all aspects of daily life has corresponded with the development of implementation of a wide range of technology-based interventions for health purposes.⁴ Examples of electronic health or eHealth modalities include internet-based, telephone supported, interactive voice-response, videoconferencing, mobile apps, and virtual reality. While the use of technology in chronic pain management interventions has increased in recent years, the literature is still limited, heterogenous, and provides limited evidence on the efficacy of eHealth/digital interventions, let alone which specific modalities are most effective.^4-9

This study adds to the literature as a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a person-centered intervention for individuals with CWP delivered with digital eHealth support compared with standard telephone follow-up. Results showed no significant difference in the primary outcome of pain intensity and nearly all secondary outcomes between the intervention group (supported by the digital platform) and the active control group (supported by a follow-up phone call). Further, intervention participants who did not use the platform improved significantly more in pain intensity than those who used the platform.

While these results imply that digital support does not contribute to improvements in the outcomes measured, it is important these findings are interpreted with caution given the limitations of the study design as well as limitations with the intervention itself. Importantly, while this study was designed as a randomized controlled trial, the authors indicated that it was not possible to blind the participants or the physiotherapist to group allocation, which may have impacted their behaviors while in the study. In addition, as the authors note, an intervention aimed at increasing physical activity should ideally include an objective measure of activity and this was lacking in this study. The use of an actigraphy device for example would have provided objective, continuous data on movement and could have helped assess an important outcome measure – whether participants reached their physical activity goals or had increased their overall physical activity. In the analysis, there was no adjustment for multiple comparisons or use of imputation methods to handle missing values. Further, it was unclear whether differences in baseline data were evaluated and taken into consideration in between-group analyses. Lastly, results are only attributable to the eHealth mode used in this study (digital web-based with limited mechanisms of behavior change and engagement built-in) and thus should not be generalized to all digital/eHealth interventions persons with CWP.

Applications for Clinical Practice

While the results of this study failed to demonstrate significant differences between a physical activity-promoting intervention for persons with CWP with digital follow-up vs telephone follow-up, it remains important to consider person-centered principles when offering CWP management support. In this spirit, clinicians should consider a management approach that takes into account the individual’s knowledge, resources, and barriers, and also actively involves the patient in treatment planning to enhance the patient’s self-efficacy to manage their health. In addition, individual preference for a specific (or combination of) eHealth/digital modality should be considered and used to guide a comprehensive management plan, as well as used as a complementary modality to face-to-face care/support.