Article

Key clinical point: Residual cancer burden (RCB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was prognostic for event-free survival (EFS) in each hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) subtype of breast cancer.

Major finding: RCB was prognostic for EFS with the hazard ratio associated with each unit increase in RCB being 1.69 (P < .0001) for the overall population and ranging from 1.52 in HR-positive/HER2-negative group to 2.09 in HR-negative/HER2-positive group (P < .0001 for all subtypes).

Study details: Findings are pooled analysis of 4 trials and 8 clinical cohorts, including 5,161 adult patients with primary stage I-III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, USA. Some of the authors declared serving as a consultant, data and safety monitoring advisor, and/or receiving grants, funding, personal fees, travel support, and honoraria from several sources.

Source: Yau C et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Dec 10. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00589-1.

Key clinical point: Residual cancer burden (RCB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was prognostic for event-free survival (EFS) in each hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) subtype of breast cancer.

Major finding: RCB was prognostic for EFS with the hazard ratio associated with each unit increase in RCB being 1.69 (P < .0001) for the overall population and ranging from 1.52 in HR-positive/HER2-negative group to 2.09 in HR-negative/HER2-positive group (P < .0001 for all subtypes).

Study details: Findings are pooled analysis of 4 trials and 8 clinical cohorts, including 5,161 adult patients with primary stage I-III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, USA. Some of the authors declared serving as a consultant, data and safety monitoring advisor, and/or receiving grants, funding, personal fees, travel support, and honoraria from several sources.

Source: Yau C et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Dec 10. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00589-1.

Key clinical point: Residual cancer burden (RCB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was prognostic for event-free survival (EFS) in each hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) subtype of breast cancer.

Major finding: RCB was prognostic for EFS with the hazard ratio associated with each unit increase in RCB being 1.69 (P < .0001) for the overall population and ranging from 1.52 in HR-positive/HER2-negative group to 2.09 in HR-negative/HER2-positive group (P < .0001 for all subtypes).

Study details: Findings are pooled analysis of 4 trials and 8 clinical cohorts, including 5,161 adult patients with primary stage I-III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, USA. Some of the authors declared serving as a consultant, data and safety monitoring advisor, and/or receiving grants, funding, personal fees, travel support, and honoraria from several sources.

Source: Yau C et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Dec 10. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00589-1.

The Diagnosis: Coma Blisters

Histologic examination revealed pauci-inflammatory subepidermal blisters with swelling of eccrine cells, signaling impending gland necrosis (Figure). Direct immunofluorescence testing on perilesional skin was negative. These findings would be inconsistent for diagnoses of edema blisters (most commonly seen in patients with an acute exacerbation of chronic lower extremity edema), friction blisters (intraepidermal blisters seen on histopathology), and bullous pemphigoid (linear IgG and/or C3 staining along the basement membrane zone on direct immunofluorescence testing is characteristic). Although eccrine gland alterations have been seen in toxic epidermal necrolysis,¹ the mucous membranes are involved in more than 90% of cases, making the diagnosis less likely. Furthermore, interface changes including prominent keratinocyte necrosis were not seen on histology.

Given the localized nature of the lesions in our patient and negative direct immunofluorescence studies, a diagnosis of coma blisters was made. Gentle wound care practices to the areas of denuded skin were implemented with complete resolution. The patient’s condition gradually improved, and she was extubated and discharged home.

Coma blisters are self-limited bullous lesions that have been reported in comatose patients as early as 1812 when Napoleon’s surgeon first noticed cutaneous blisters in comatose French soldiers being treated for carbon monoxide intoxication.² Since then, barbiturate overdose has remained the most common association, but coma blisters have occurred in the absence of specific drug exposures. Clinically, erythematous or violaceous plaques typically appear within 24 hours of drug ingestion, and progression to large tense bullae usually occurs within 48 to 72 hours of unconsciousness.³ They characteristically occur in pressure-dependent areas, but reports have shown lesions in non–pressure-dependent areas, including the penis and mouth.^1,4 Spontaneous resolution within 1 to 2 weeks is typical.⁵

The underlying pathogenesis remains controversial, as multiple mechanisms have been suggested, but clear causal evidence is lacking. The original proposition that direct effects of drug toxicity caused the cutaneous observations was later refuted after similar bullous lesions with eccrine gland necrosis were reported in comatose patients with neurologic conditions.⁶ It is largely accepted that pressure-induced local ischemia—proportional to the duration and amount of pressure—leads to tissue injury and is critical to the pathogenesis. During periods of ischemia, the most metabolically active tissues will undergo necrosis first; however, in eccrine glands, the earliest and most severe damage does not seem to occur in the most metabolically active cells.⁷ Additionally, this would not provide a viable explanation for coma blisters with eccrine gland necrosis developing in variable non–pressuredependent areas.

Moreover, drug- and non–drug-induced coma blisters can appear identically, but specific histopathologic differences have been reported. The most notable markers of non–drug-induced coma blisters are the absence of an inflammatory infiltrate in the epidermis and the presence of thrombosis in dermal vessels.⁸ Demonstration of necrotic changes in the secretory portion of the eccrine gland is considered the histopathologic hallmark for drug-induced coma blisters, but other findings can include subepidermal or intraepidermal bullae; perivascular infiltrates; and focal necrosis of the epidermis, dermis, subcutis, or epidermal appendages.⁶ Arteriolar wall necrosis and dermal inflammatory infiltrates also have been observed.⁷

Benzodiazepines have been widely prescribed and abused since their development, and overdose is much more common today than with barbiturates.⁹ Coma blisters rarely have been documented in the setting of isolated benzodiazepine overdose, and of the few cases, only one report implicated lorazepam as the causative agent.^4,7 The characteristic finding of eccrine gland necrosis consistently was seen in our patient. This case not only emphasizes the need for greater awareness of the association between benzodiazepine overdose and coma blisters but also the importance of clinical context when considering diagnoses. It is essential to note that coma blisters themselves are nonspecific, and the diagnosis of drug-induced coma blisters warrants confirmatory toxicologic analysis.

The Diagnosis: Coma Blisters

Histologic examination revealed pauci-inflammatory subepidermal blisters with swelling of eccrine cells, signaling impending gland necrosis (Figure). Direct immunofluorescence testing on perilesional skin was negative. These findings would be inconsistent for diagnoses of edema blisters (most commonly seen in patients with an acute exacerbation of chronic lower extremity edema), friction blisters (intraepidermal blisters seen on histopathology), and bullous pemphigoid (linear IgG and/or C3 staining along the basement membrane zone on direct immunofluorescence testing is characteristic). Although eccrine gland alterations have been seen in toxic epidermal necrolysis,¹ the mucous membranes are involved in more than 90% of cases, making the diagnosis less likely. Furthermore, interface changes including prominent keratinocyte necrosis were not seen on histology.

Given the localized nature of the lesions in our patient and negative direct immunofluorescence studies, a diagnosis of coma blisters was made. Gentle wound care practices to the areas of denuded skin were implemented with complete resolution. The patient’s condition gradually improved, and she was extubated and discharged home.

Coma blisters are self-limited bullous lesions that have been reported in comatose patients as early as 1812 when Napoleon’s surgeon first noticed cutaneous blisters in comatose French soldiers being treated for carbon monoxide intoxication.² Since then, barbiturate overdose has remained the most common association, but coma blisters have occurred in the absence of specific drug exposures. Clinically, erythematous or violaceous plaques typically appear within 24 hours of drug ingestion, and progression to large tense bullae usually occurs within 48 to 72 hours of unconsciousness.³ They characteristically occur in pressure-dependent areas, but reports have shown lesions in non–pressure-dependent areas, including the penis and mouth.^1,4 Spontaneous resolution within 1 to 2 weeks is typical.⁵

The underlying pathogenesis remains controversial, as multiple mechanisms have been suggested, but clear causal evidence is lacking. The original proposition that direct effects of drug toxicity caused the cutaneous observations was later refuted after similar bullous lesions with eccrine gland necrosis were reported in comatose patients with neurologic conditions.⁶ It is largely accepted that pressure-induced local ischemia—proportional to the duration and amount of pressure—leads to tissue injury and is critical to the pathogenesis. During periods of ischemia, the most metabolically active tissues will undergo necrosis first; however, in eccrine glands, the earliest and most severe damage does not seem to occur in the most metabolically active cells.⁷ Additionally, this would not provide a viable explanation for coma blisters with eccrine gland necrosis developing in variable non–pressuredependent areas.

Moreover, drug- and non–drug-induced coma blisters can appear identically, but specific histopathologic differences have been reported. The most notable markers of non–drug-induced coma blisters are the absence of an inflammatory infiltrate in the epidermis and the presence of thrombosis in dermal vessels.⁸ Demonstration of necrotic changes in the secretory portion of the eccrine gland is considered the histopathologic hallmark for drug-induced coma blisters, but other findings can include subepidermal or intraepidermal bullae; perivascular infiltrates; and focal necrosis of the epidermis, dermis, subcutis, or epidermal appendages.⁶ Arteriolar wall necrosis and dermal inflammatory infiltrates also have been observed.⁷

Benzodiazepines have been widely prescribed and abused since their development, and overdose is much more common today than with barbiturates.⁹ Coma blisters rarely have been documented in the setting of isolated benzodiazepine overdose, and of the few cases, only one report implicated lorazepam as the causative agent.^4,7 The characteristic finding of eccrine gland necrosis consistently was seen in our patient. This case not only emphasizes the need for greater awareness of the association between benzodiazepine overdose and coma blisters but also the importance of clinical context when considering diagnoses. It is essential to note that coma blisters themselves are nonspecific, and the diagnosis of drug-induced coma blisters warrants confirmatory toxicologic analysis.

The Diagnosis: Coma Blisters

Histologic examination revealed pauci-inflammatory subepidermal blisters with swelling of eccrine cells, signaling impending gland necrosis (Figure). Direct immunofluorescence testing on perilesional skin was negative. These findings would be inconsistent for diagnoses of edema blisters (most commonly seen in patients with an acute exacerbation of chronic lower extremity edema), friction blisters (intraepidermal blisters seen on histopathology), and bullous pemphigoid (linear IgG and/or C3 staining along the basement membrane zone on direct immunofluorescence testing is characteristic). Although eccrine gland alterations have been seen in toxic epidermal necrolysis,¹ the mucous membranes are involved in more than 90% of cases, making the diagnosis less likely. Furthermore, interface changes including prominent keratinocyte necrosis were not seen on histology.

Given the localized nature of the lesions in our patient and negative direct immunofluorescence studies, a diagnosis of coma blisters was made. Gentle wound care practices to the areas of denuded skin were implemented with complete resolution. The patient’s condition gradually improved, and she was extubated and discharged home.

Coma blisters are self-limited bullous lesions that have been reported in comatose patients as early as 1812 when Napoleon’s surgeon first noticed cutaneous blisters in comatose French soldiers being treated for carbon monoxide intoxication.² Since then, barbiturate overdose has remained the most common association, but coma blisters have occurred in the absence of specific drug exposures. Clinically, erythematous or violaceous plaques typically appear within 24 hours of drug ingestion, and progression to large tense bullae usually occurs within 48 to 72 hours of unconsciousness.³ They characteristically occur in pressure-dependent areas, but reports have shown lesions in non–pressure-dependent areas, including the penis and mouth.^1,4 Spontaneous resolution within 1 to 2 weeks is typical.⁵

The underlying pathogenesis remains controversial, as multiple mechanisms have been suggested, but clear causal evidence is lacking. The original proposition that direct effects of drug toxicity caused the cutaneous observations was later refuted after similar bullous lesions with eccrine gland necrosis were reported in comatose patients with neurologic conditions.⁶ It is largely accepted that pressure-induced local ischemia—proportional to the duration and amount of pressure—leads to tissue injury and is critical to the pathogenesis. During periods of ischemia, the most metabolically active tissues will undergo necrosis first; however, in eccrine glands, the earliest and most severe damage does not seem to occur in the most metabolically active cells.⁷ Additionally, this would not provide a viable explanation for coma blisters with eccrine gland necrosis developing in variable non–pressuredependent areas.

Moreover, drug- and non–drug-induced coma blisters can appear identically, but specific histopathologic differences have been reported. The most notable markers of non–drug-induced coma blisters are the absence of an inflammatory infiltrate in the epidermis and the presence of thrombosis in dermal vessels.⁸ Demonstration of necrotic changes in the secretory portion of the eccrine gland is considered the histopathologic hallmark for drug-induced coma blisters, but other findings can include subepidermal or intraepidermal bullae; perivascular infiltrates; and focal necrosis of the epidermis, dermis, subcutis, or epidermal appendages.⁶ Arteriolar wall necrosis and dermal inflammatory infiltrates also have been observed.⁷

Benzodiazepines have been widely prescribed and abused since their development, and overdose is much more common today than with barbiturates.⁹ Coma blisters rarely have been documented in the setting of isolated benzodiazepine overdose, and of the few cases, only one report implicated lorazepam as the causative agent.^4,7 The characteristic finding of eccrine gland necrosis consistently was seen in our patient. This case not only emphasizes the need for greater awareness of the association between benzodiazepine overdose and coma blisters but also the importance of clinical context when considering diagnoses. It is essential to note that coma blisters themselves are nonspecific, and the diagnosis of drug-induced coma blisters warrants confirmatory toxicologic analysis.

On the basis of the patient's history and clinical presentation, the likely diagnosis is ketosis-prone diabetes (KPD) type 2. KPD is widely thought of as an atypical diabetes syndrome, though some groups consider it to be a common clinical presentation in newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) rather than a subtype of disease. The condition is more prevalent in males and among Black and Hispanic populations.

Definitive diagnosis of the type of diabetes can present a clinical challenge during acute presentation. Although the majority of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) episodes occur in patients previously diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, an estimated 34% occur in patients with T2D. For patients who are obese or have a family history of diabetes, there should be a high index of suspicion for new-onset DKA in type 2 diabetes.

Patients with KPD typically present in a state of ketoacidosis with a brief but acute history of hyperglycemic symptoms. Hyperglycemia, elevated anion gap acidosis, and ketonemia form the expected constellation of DKA symptoms. A key consideration in the differential diagnosis is hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS). Patients with HHS are much more likely to have altered mental status than are patients with DKA. Metabolic acidosis and ketonemia are absent or mild, and anion gap is either normal or slightly elevated. In HHS, extreme elevations of glucose are seen, with a lack of significant ketoacidosis. Glucose levels tend to be higher in HHS than in DKA; they are almost always > 600 mg/dL, and levels > 1000 mg/dL are not uncommon. In DKA, glucose levels are still markedly high — generally 500-800 mg/dL but rarely exceeding 900 mg/dL. Patients with DKA also usually present with an A1c > 10% and a blood pH < 7.30. 

Treatment for KPD is initially acute, beginning with aggressive intravenous fluid and insulin therapy A. Once this state resolves, insulin requirements typically decrease for patients with T2D, and they are able to maintain adequate glycemic control with an oral therapy regimen.

Romesh K. Khardori, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Diabetes, Endocrine, and Metabolic Disorders, Eastern Virginia  Medical School; EVMS Medical Group, Norfolk, Virginia.

Romesh K. Khardori, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

On the basis of the patient's history and clinical presentation, the likely diagnosis is ketosis-prone diabetes (KPD) type 2. KPD is widely thought of as an atypical diabetes syndrome, though some groups consider it to be a common clinical presentation in newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) rather than a subtype of disease. The condition is more prevalent in males and among Black and Hispanic populations.

Definitive diagnosis of the type of diabetes can present a clinical challenge during acute presentation. Although the majority of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) episodes occur in patients previously diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, an estimated 34% occur in patients with T2D. For patients who are obese or have a family history of diabetes, there should be a high index of suspicion for new-onset DKA in type 2 diabetes.

Patients with KPD typically present in a state of ketoacidosis with a brief but acute history of hyperglycemic symptoms. Hyperglycemia, elevated anion gap acidosis, and ketonemia form the expected constellation of DKA symptoms. A key consideration in the differential diagnosis is hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS). Patients with HHS are much more likely to have altered mental status than are patients with DKA. Metabolic acidosis and ketonemia are absent or mild, and anion gap is either normal or slightly elevated. In HHS, extreme elevations of glucose are seen, with a lack of significant ketoacidosis. Glucose levels tend to be higher in HHS than in DKA; they are almost always > 600 mg/dL, and levels > 1000 mg/dL are not uncommon. In DKA, glucose levels are still markedly high — generally 500-800 mg/dL but rarely exceeding 900 mg/dL. Patients with DKA also usually present with an A1c > 10% and a blood pH < 7.30. 

Treatment for KPD is initially acute, beginning with aggressive intravenous fluid and insulin therapy A. Once this state resolves, insulin requirements typically decrease for patients with T2D, and they are able to maintain adequate glycemic control with an oral therapy regimen.

Romesh K. Khardori, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Diabetes, Endocrine, and Metabolic Disorders, Eastern Virginia  Medical School; EVMS Medical Group, Norfolk, Virginia.

Romesh K. Khardori, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

On the basis of the patient's history and clinical presentation, the likely diagnosis is ketosis-prone diabetes (KPD) type 2. KPD is widely thought of as an atypical diabetes syndrome, though some groups consider it to be a common clinical presentation in newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) rather than a subtype of disease. The condition is more prevalent in males and among Black and Hispanic populations.

Definitive diagnosis of the type of diabetes can present a clinical challenge during acute presentation. Although the majority of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) episodes occur in patients previously diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, an estimated 34% occur in patients with T2D. For patients who are obese or have a family history of diabetes, there should be a high index of suspicion for new-onset DKA in type 2 diabetes.

Patients with KPD typically present in a state of ketoacidosis with a brief but acute history of hyperglycemic symptoms. Hyperglycemia, elevated anion gap acidosis, and ketonemia form the expected constellation of DKA symptoms. A key consideration in the differential diagnosis is hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS). Patients with HHS are much more likely to have altered mental status than are patients with DKA. Metabolic acidosis and ketonemia are absent or mild, and anion gap is either normal or slightly elevated. In HHS, extreme elevations of glucose are seen, with a lack of significant ketoacidosis. Glucose levels tend to be higher in HHS than in DKA; they are almost always > 600 mg/dL, and levels > 1000 mg/dL are not uncommon. In DKA, glucose levels are still markedly high — generally 500-800 mg/dL but rarely exceeding 900 mg/dL. Patients with DKA also usually present with an A1c > 10% and a blood pH < 7.30. 

Treatment for KPD is initially acute, beginning with aggressive intravenous fluid and insulin therapy A. Once this state resolves, insulin requirements typically decrease for patients with T2D, and they are able to maintain adequate glycemic control with an oral therapy regimen.

Romesh K. Khardori, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Diabetes, Endocrine, and Metabolic Disorders, Eastern Virginia  Medical School; EVMS Medical Group, Norfolk, Virginia.

Romesh K. Khardori, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Obstetrical practice saw updates in 2021 to 3 major areas of pregnancy management: preterm birth prevention, antepartum fetal surveillance, and the use of antenatal corticosteroids.

Updated guidance on predicting and preventing spontaneous PTB

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins–Obstetrics. Prediction and prevention of spontaneous preterm birth: ACOG practice bulletin, number 234. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138:e65-e90.

Preterm birth (PTB) continues to pose a challenge in clinical obstetrics, with the most recently reported rate of 10.2% in the United States.¹ This accounts for almost 75% of perinatal mortality and more than half of neonatal morbidity, in which effects last well past the neonatal period. PTB is classified as spontaneous (following preterm labor, preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, or cervical insufficiency) or iatrogenic (indicated due to maternal and/or fetal complications).

Assessing risk for PTB

The single strongest predictor of subsequent PTB is a history of spontaneous PTB. Recurrence risk is further increased by the number of prior PTBs and the gestational age at prior PTB. Identification of and intervention for a short cervix has been shown to prolong gestation. Transvaginal ultrasonography of the cervix is the most accurate method for evaluating cervical length (CL). Specific examination criteria exist to ensure that CL measurements are reproducible and reliable.² A short CL is generally defined as a measurement of less than 25 mm between 16 and 24 weeks’ gestation.

Screening strategies

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), with an endorsement from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), recommends cervical evaluation during the anatomy ultrasound exam between 18 0/7 and 22 6/7 weeks’ gestation in all pregnant patients regardless of prior PTB.³ If transabdominal imaging is concerning for a shortened cervix, transvaginal ultrasonography should be performed to assess the CL.

Serial transvaginal CL measurements are recommended between 16 0/7 and 24 0/7 weeks’ gestation for patients with a current singleton pregnancy and history of a spontaneous PTB, but not for patients with a history of iatrogenic or indicated PTB.

Interventions: Mind your p’s and c’s

Interventions to reduce the risk of spontaneous PTB depend on whether the current pregnancy is a singleton, twins, or higher-order multiples; CL measurement; and history of spontaneous PTB. Preconception optimization of underlying medical conditions also is important to reduce the risk of recurrent indicated PTB.

Continue to: Progesterone...

Progesterone

Vaginal administration. Several trials have shown that vaginal progesterone can be used to reduce the risk of spontaneous PTB in asymptomatic patients with a singleton pregnancy, incidental finding of a short cervix (<25 mm), and no history of spontaneous PTB. This is a change from the prior recommendation of CL of less than 20 mm. In the setting of a twin pregnancy, regardless of CL, data do not definitively support the use of vaginal progesterone.

Intramuscular administration.^4,5 The popularity of intramuscular progesterone has waxed and waned. At present, ACOG recommends that all patients with a singleton pregnancy and history of spontaneous PTB be offered progesterone beginning at 16 0/7 weeks’ gestation following a shared decision-making process that includes the limited data of efficacy noted in existing studies.

In a twin pregnancy with no history of spontaneous PTB, the use of intramuscular progesterone has been shown to potentially increase the risk of PTB and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. As such, intramuscular progesterone in the setting of a twin gestation without a history of spontaneous PTB is not recommended. When a prior spontaneous PTB has occurred, there may be some benefit to intramuscular progesterone in twin gestations.

Cerclage

Ultrasound indicated. In a singleton pregnancy with an incidental finding of short cervix (<25 mm) and no history of PTB, the use of cerclage is of uncertain benefit. Effectiveness may be seen if the cervix is less than 10 mm. Ultrasound-indicated cerclage should be considered in a singleton pregnancy with a CL less than 25 mm and a history of spontaneous PTB.

Possibly one of the most controversial topics is ultrasound-indicated cerclage placement in twin gestation. As with many situations in obstetrics, data regarding ultrasound-indicated cerclage in twin gestation is based on small retrospective studies fraught with bias. Results from these studies range from no benefit, to potential benefit, to even possible increased risk of PTB. Since data are limited, as we await more evidence, it is recommended that the clinician and patient use shared decision making to decide on cerclage placement in a twin gestation.

Exam indicated. In a singleton pregnancy with a dilated cervix on digital or speculum exam between 16 0/7 to 23 6/7 weeks’ gestation, a physical exam–indicated cerclage should be offered. Exam-indicated cerclage also may reduce the incidence of PTB in twin gestations with cervical dilation between 16 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks’ gestation. Indomethacin tocolysis and perioperative antibiotics should be considered when an exam-indicated cerclage is placed.

As the limits of viability are continually pushed earlier, more in-depth conversation is needed with patients who are considering an exam-indicated cerclage. The nuances of periviability and the likelihood that an exam-indicated cerclage will commit a pregnancy to a periviable or extremely preterm birth should be discussed in detail using a shared decision making model.

Regardless of whether the cerclage is ultrasound or exam indicated, once it is placed there is no utility in additional CL ultrasound monitoring.

Pessary

Vaginal pessaries for prevention of PTB have not gained popularity in the United States as they have in other countries. Trials are being conducted to determine the utility of vaginal pessary, but current data have not proven its effectiveness in preventing PTB in the setting of singleton pregnancy, short cervix, and no history of spontaneous PTB. So for now, pessary is not recommended. The same can be said for use in the twin gestation.

Which patients may benefit from antepartum fetal surveillance and when to initiate it

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Obstetrics Practice, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Indications for outpatient antenatal surveillance: ACOG committee opinion, number 828. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137:e177-e197.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics. Antepartum fetal surveillance: ACOG practice bulletin, number 229. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137:e116-e127.

The ultimate purpose of antenatal fetal surveillance is to prevent stillbirth. However, stillbirth has multiple etiologies, not all of which are preventable with testing. In June 2021, ACOG released a new Committee Opinion containing guidelines for fetal surveillance, including suggested gestational age at initiation and frequency of testing, for the most common high-risk conditions. ACOG also released an update to the Practice Bulletin on antepartum fetal surveillance; additions include randomized controlled trial level data on the utility of fetal kick counts (FKCs) and recommendations that align with the new Committee Opinion.

Data for the efficacy of antepartum fetal surveillance are lacking, mainly due to the difficulty of performing prospective studies in stillbirth. The existing evidence is subject to intervention bias, as deliveries increase in tested patients, and recommendations rely heavily on expert consensus and nonrandomized studies. Antenatal testing is also time, cost, and labor intensive, with the risk of intervention for a false-positive result. Despite these limitations, obstetrical practices routinely perform antenatal fetal surveillance.

The new guidelines: The why, when, and how often

Why. Antepartum fetal surveillance is suggested for conditions that have a risk of stillbirth greater than 0.8 per 1,000 (that is, the false-negative rate of a biophysical profile or a modified biophysical profile) and the relative risk or odds ratio is greater than 2.0 for stillbirth compared with unaffected pregnancies.

When. For most conditions, ACOG recommends initiation of testing at 32 weeks or later, with notable earlier exceptions for some of the highest-risk patients. For certain conditions, such as fetal growth restriction and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, the recommendation is to start “at diagnosis,” with the corollary “or at a gestational age when delivery would be considered because of abnormal results.” Shared decision making with the patient about pregnancy goals therefore is required, particularly in cases of fetal anomalies, genetic conditions, or at very early gestational ages.

How often. The recommended frequency of testing is at least weekly. Testing frequency should be increased to twice-weekly outpatient or daily inpatient for the most complicated pregnancies (for example, fetal growth restriction with abnormal umbilical artery Doppler studies, preeclampsia with severe features).

Once or twice weekly is an option for many conditions, which gives the clinician the opportunity to assess clinical stability as well as the patient’s input in terms of logistics and anxiety.

Patients with multiple conditions may fall into the “individualized” category, as do patients with suboptimal control of conditions (for example, diabetes, hypertension) that may affect the fetus as the pregnancy progresses.

New diagnoses included for surveillance

Several diagnoses not previously included now qualify for antepartum fetal surveillance under the new guidelines, most notably:

• history of obstetrical complications in the immediate preceding pregnancy

—history of prior fetal growth restriction requiring preterm delivery

—history of prior preeclampsia requiring delivery

• alcohol use of 5 or more drinks per day
• in vitro fertilization
• abnormal serum markers

—pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A) in the fifth or lower percentile or 0.4 multiples of the median (MoM)

—second trimester inhibin A of 2 or greater MoM

• prepregnancy body mass index (BMI)

—this is divided into 2 categories for timing of initiation of testing:

1.  37 weeks for BMI of 35 to 39.9 kg/m²
2.  34 weeks for BMI of or greater than 40 kg/m².

Fetal kick counts

The major change to the updated Practice Bulletin on antenatal surveillance is the inclusion of data on FKCs, a simple modality of fetal surveillance that does not require a clinical visit. For FKCs, a meta-analysis of more than 450,000 patients did not demonstrate a difference in perinatal death between the FKC intervention group (0.54%) and the control group (0.59%). Of note, there were small but statistically significant increases in the rates of induction of labor, cesarean delivery, and preterm delivery in the FKC intervention group. Therefore, this update does not recommend a formal program of FKCs for all patients.

Continue to: Use of antenatal corticosteroids now may be considered at 22 weeks’ gestation...

Use of antenatal corticosteroids now may be considered at 22 weeks’ gestation

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Use of antenatal corticosteroids at 22 weeks of gestation: ACOG practice advisory. September 2021. https://www .acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-advisory /articles/2021/09/use-of-antenatal-corticosteroids-at -22-weeks-of-gestation. Accessed December 11, 2021.

In September 2021, ACOG and SMFM released a Practice Advisory updating the current recommendations for the administration of antenatal corticosteroids in the periviable period (22 to 25 6/7 weeks’ gestation). Whereas the prior lower limit of gestational age for consideration of steroids was 23 weeks, the new recommendation now extends this consideration down to 22 weeks.

The cited data include a meta-analysis of more than 2,200 patients in which the survival rate of infants born between 22 and 22 6/7 weeks who were exposed to antenatal steroids was 39% compared with 19.5% in the unexposed group. Another study of more than 1,000 patients demonstrated a statistically significant increase in overall survival in patients treated with antenatal steroids plus life support compared with life support only (38.5% vs 17.7%). Survival without major morbidity in this study, although increased from 1% to 4.4%, was still low.

Recommendation carries caveats

Given this information, the Practice Advisory offers a 2C level recommendation (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence) for antenatal steroids at 22 to 22 6/7 weeks’ gestation if neonatal resuscitation is planned, acknowledging the limitations and potential bias of the available data.

The Practice Advisory emphasizes the importance of counseling and patient involvement in the decision making. This requires a multidisciplinary collaboration among the neonatology and obstetrical teams, flexibility in the plan after birth depending on the infant’s condition, and redirection of care if appropriate. Estimated fetal weight, the presence of multiple gestations, fetal biologic sex, and any anomalies are also important in helping families make an informed decision for their particular pregnancy. As described in the Obstetric Care Consensus on periviable birth,⁶ it is important to remember that considerations and recommendations are not the same as requirements, and redirection of care to comfort and family memory making is not the same as withholding care.

The rest of the recommendations for the administration of antenatal steroids remain the same: Antenatal steroids are not recommended at less than 22 weeks due to lack of evidence of benefit, and they continue to be recommended at 24 weeks and beyond. ●

Obstetrical practice saw updates in 2021 to 3 major areas of pregnancy management: preterm birth prevention, antepartum fetal surveillance, and the use of antenatal corticosteroids.

Updated guidance on predicting and preventing spontaneous PTB

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins–Obstetrics. Prediction and prevention of spontaneous preterm birth: ACOG practice bulletin, number 234. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138:e65-e90.

Preterm birth (PTB) continues to pose a challenge in clinical obstetrics, with the most recently reported rate of 10.2% in the United States.¹ This accounts for almost 75% of perinatal mortality and more than half of neonatal morbidity, in which effects last well past the neonatal period. PTB is classified as spontaneous (following preterm labor, preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, or cervical insufficiency) or iatrogenic (indicated due to maternal and/or fetal complications).

Assessing risk for PTB

The single strongest predictor of subsequent PTB is a history of spontaneous PTB. Recurrence risk is further increased by the number of prior PTBs and the gestational age at prior PTB. Identification of and intervention for a short cervix has been shown to prolong gestation. Transvaginal ultrasonography of the cervix is the most accurate method for evaluating cervical length (CL). Specific examination criteria exist to ensure that CL measurements are reproducible and reliable.² A short CL is generally defined as a measurement of less than 25 mm between 16 and 24 weeks’ gestation.

Screening strategies

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), with an endorsement from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), recommends cervical evaluation during the anatomy ultrasound exam between 18 0/7 and 22 6/7 weeks’ gestation in all pregnant patients regardless of prior PTB.³ If transabdominal imaging is concerning for a shortened cervix, transvaginal ultrasonography should be performed to assess the CL.

Serial transvaginal CL measurements are recommended between 16 0/7 and 24 0/7 weeks’ gestation for patients with a current singleton pregnancy and history of a spontaneous PTB, but not for patients with a history of iatrogenic or indicated PTB.

Interventions: Mind your p’s and c’s

Interventions to reduce the risk of spontaneous PTB depend on whether the current pregnancy is a singleton, twins, or higher-order multiples; CL measurement; and history of spontaneous PTB. Preconception optimization of underlying medical conditions also is important to reduce the risk of recurrent indicated PTB.

Continue to: Progesterone...

Progesterone

Vaginal administration. Several trials have shown that vaginal progesterone can be used to reduce the risk of spontaneous PTB in asymptomatic patients with a singleton pregnancy, incidental finding of a short cervix (<25 mm), and no history of spontaneous PTB. This is a change from the prior recommendation of CL of less than 20 mm. In the setting of a twin pregnancy, regardless of CL, data do not definitively support the use of vaginal progesterone.

Intramuscular administration.^4,5 The popularity of intramuscular progesterone has waxed and waned. At present, ACOG recommends that all patients with a singleton pregnancy and history of spontaneous PTB be offered progesterone beginning at 16 0/7 weeks’ gestation following a shared decision-making process that includes the limited data of efficacy noted in existing studies.

In a twin pregnancy with no history of spontaneous PTB, the use of intramuscular progesterone has been shown to potentially increase the risk of PTB and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. As such, intramuscular progesterone in the setting of a twin gestation without a history of spontaneous PTB is not recommended. When a prior spontaneous PTB has occurred, there may be some benefit to intramuscular progesterone in twin gestations.

Cerclage

Ultrasound indicated. In a singleton pregnancy with an incidental finding of short cervix (<25 mm) and no history of PTB, the use of cerclage is of uncertain benefit. Effectiveness may be seen if the cervix is less than 10 mm. Ultrasound-indicated cerclage should be considered in a singleton pregnancy with a CL less than 25 mm and a history of spontaneous PTB.

Possibly one of the most controversial topics is ultrasound-indicated cerclage placement in twin gestation. As with many situations in obstetrics, data regarding ultrasound-indicated cerclage in twin gestation is based on small retrospective studies fraught with bias. Results from these studies range from no benefit, to potential benefit, to even possible increased risk of PTB. Since data are limited, as we await more evidence, it is recommended that the clinician and patient use shared decision making to decide on cerclage placement in a twin gestation.

Exam indicated. In a singleton pregnancy with a dilated cervix on digital or speculum exam between 16 0/7 to 23 6/7 weeks’ gestation, a physical exam–indicated cerclage should be offered. Exam-indicated cerclage also may reduce the incidence of PTB in twin gestations with cervical dilation between 16 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks’ gestation. Indomethacin tocolysis and perioperative antibiotics should be considered when an exam-indicated cerclage is placed.

As the limits of viability are continually pushed earlier, more in-depth conversation is needed with patients who are considering an exam-indicated cerclage. The nuances of periviability and the likelihood that an exam-indicated cerclage will commit a pregnancy to a periviable or extremely preterm birth should be discussed in detail using a shared decision making model.

Regardless of whether the cerclage is ultrasound or exam indicated, once it is placed there is no utility in additional CL ultrasound monitoring.

Pessary

Vaginal pessaries for prevention of PTB have not gained popularity in the United States as they have in other countries. Trials are being conducted to determine the utility of vaginal pessary, but current data have not proven its effectiveness in preventing PTB in the setting of singleton pregnancy, short cervix, and no history of spontaneous PTB. So for now, pessary is not recommended. The same can be said for use in the twin gestation.

Which patients may benefit from antepartum fetal surveillance and when to initiate it

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Obstetrics Practice, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Indications for outpatient antenatal surveillance: ACOG committee opinion, number 828. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137:e177-e197.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics. Antepartum fetal surveillance: ACOG practice bulletin, number 229. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137:e116-e127.

The ultimate purpose of antenatal fetal surveillance is to prevent stillbirth. However, stillbirth has multiple etiologies, not all of which are preventable with testing. In June 2021, ACOG released a new Committee Opinion containing guidelines for fetal surveillance, including suggested gestational age at initiation and frequency of testing, for the most common high-risk conditions. ACOG also released an update to the Practice Bulletin on antepartum fetal surveillance; additions include randomized controlled trial level data on the utility of fetal kick counts (FKCs) and recommendations that align with the new Committee Opinion.

Data for the efficacy of antepartum fetal surveillance are lacking, mainly due to the difficulty of performing prospective studies in stillbirth. The existing evidence is subject to intervention bias, as deliveries increase in tested patients, and recommendations rely heavily on expert consensus and nonrandomized studies. Antenatal testing is also time, cost, and labor intensive, with the risk of intervention for a false-positive result. Despite these limitations, obstetrical practices routinely perform antenatal fetal surveillance.

The new guidelines: The why, when, and how often

Why. Antepartum fetal surveillance is suggested for conditions that have a risk of stillbirth greater than 0.8 per 1,000 (that is, the false-negative rate of a biophysical profile or a modified biophysical profile) and the relative risk or odds ratio is greater than 2.0 for stillbirth compared with unaffected pregnancies.

When. For most conditions, ACOG recommends initiation of testing at 32 weeks or later, with notable earlier exceptions for some of the highest-risk patients. For certain conditions, such as fetal growth restriction and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, the recommendation is to start “at diagnosis,” with the corollary “or at a gestational age when delivery would be considered because of abnormal results.” Shared decision making with the patient about pregnancy goals therefore is required, particularly in cases of fetal anomalies, genetic conditions, or at very early gestational ages.

How often. The recommended frequency of testing is at least weekly. Testing frequency should be increased to twice-weekly outpatient or daily inpatient for the most complicated pregnancies (for example, fetal growth restriction with abnormal umbilical artery Doppler studies, preeclampsia with severe features).

Once or twice weekly is an option for many conditions, which gives the clinician the opportunity to assess clinical stability as well as the patient’s input in terms of logistics and anxiety.

Patients with multiple conditions may fall into the “individualized” category, as do patients with suboptimal control of conditions (for example, diabetes, hypertension) that may affect the fetus as the pregnancy progresses.

New diagnoses included for surveillance

Several diagnoses not previously included now qualify for antepartum fetal surveillance under the new guidelines, most notably:

• history of obstetrical complications in the immediate preceding pregnancy

—history of prior fetal growth restriction requiring preterm delivery

—history of prior preeclampsia requiring delivery

• alcohol use of 5 or more drinks per day
• in vitro fertilization
• abnormal serum markers

—pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A) in the fifth or lower percentile or 0.4 multiples of the median (MoM)

—second trimester inhibin A of 2 or greater MoM

• prepregnancy body mass index (BMI)

—this is divided into 2 categories for timing of initiation of testing:

1.  37 weeks for BMI of 35 to 39.9 kg/m²
2.  34 weeks for BMI of or greater than 40 kg/m².

Fetal kick counts

The major change to the updated Practice Bulletin on antenatal surveillance is the inclusion of data on FKCs, a simple modality of fetal surveillance that does not require a clinical visit. For FKCs, a meta-analysis of more than 450,000 patients did not demonstrate a difference in perinatal death between the FKC intervention group (0.54%) and the control group (0.59%). Of note, there were small but statistically significant increases in the rates of induction of labor, cesarean delivery, and preterm delivery in the FKC intervention group. Therefore, this update does not recommend a formal program of FKCs for all patients.

Continue to: Use of antenatal corticosteroids now may be considered at 22 weeks’ gestation...

Use of antenatal corticosteroids now may be considered at 22 weeks’ gestation

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Use of antenatal corticosteroids at 22 weeks of gestation: ACOG practice advisory. September 2021. https://www .acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-advisory /articles/2021/09/use-of-antenatal-corticosteroids-at -22-weeks-of-gestation. Accessed December 11, 2021.

In September 2021, ACOG and SMFM released a Practice Advisory updating the current recommendations for the administration of antenatal corticosteroids in the periviable period (22 to 25 6/7 weeks’ gestation). Whereas the prior lower limit of gestational age for consideration of steroids was 23 weeks, the new recommendation now extends this consideration down to 22 weeks.

The cited data include a meta-analysis of more than 2,200 patients in which the survival rate of infants born between 22 and 22 6/7 weeks who were exposed to antenatal steroids was 39% compared with 19.5% in the unexposed group. Another study of more than 1,000 patients demonstrated a statistically significant increase in overall survival in patients treated with antenatal steroids plus life support compared with life support only (38.5% vs 17.7%). Survival without major morbidity in this study, although increased from 1% to 4.4%, was still low.

Recommendation carries caveats

Given this information, the Practice Advisory offers a 2C level recommendation (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence) for antenatal steroids at 22 to 22 6/7 weeks’ gestation if neonatal resuscitation is planned, acknowledging the limitations and potential bias of the available data.

The Practice Advisory emphasizes the importance of counseling and patient involvement in the decision making. This requires a multidisciplinary collaboration among the neonatology and obstetrical teams, flexibility in the plan after birth depending on the infant’s condition, and redirection of care if appropriate. Estimated fetal weight, the presence of multiple gestations, fetal biologic sex, and any anomalies are also important in helping families make an informed decision for their particular pregnancy. As described in the Obstetric Care Consensus on periviable birth,⁶ it is important to remember that considerations and recommendations are not the same as requirements, and redirection of care to comfort and family memory making is not the same as withholding care.

The rest of the recommendations for the administration of antenatal steroids remain the same: Antenatal steroids are not recommended at less than 22 weeks due to lack of evidence of benefit, and they continue to be recommended at 24 weeks and beyond. ●

Obstetrical practice saw updates in 2021 to 3 major areas of pregnancy management: preterm birth prevention, antepartum fetal surveillance, and the use of antenatal corticosteroids.

Updated guidance on predicting and preventing spontaneous PTB

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins–Obstetrics. Prediction and prevention of spontaneous preterm birth: ACOG practice bulletin, number 234. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138:e65-e90.

Preterm birth (PTB) continues to pose a challenge in clinical obstetrics, with the most recently reported rate of 10.2% in the United States.¹ This accounts for almost 75% of perinatal mortality and more than half of neonatal morbidity, in which effects last well past the neonatal period. PTB is classified as spontaneous (following preterm labor, preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, or cervical insufficiency) or iatrogenic (indicated due to maternal and/or fetal complications).

Assessing risk for PTB

The single strongest predictor of subsequent PTB is a history of spontaneous PTB. Recurrence risk is further increased by the number of prior PTBs and the gestational age at prior PTB. Identification of and intervention for a short cervix has been shown to prolong gestation. Transvaginal ultrasonography of the cervix is the most accurate method for evaluating cervical length (CL). Specific examination criteria exist to ensure that CL measurements are reproducible and reliable.² A short CL is generally defined as a measurement of less than 25 mm between 16 and 24 weeks’ gestation.

Screening strategies

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), with an endorsement from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), recommends cervical evaluation during the anatomy ultrasound exam between 18 0/7 and 22 6/7 weeks’ gestation in all pregnant patients regardless of prior PTB.³ If transabdominal imaging is concerning for a shortened cervix, transvaginal ultrasonography should be performed to assess the CL.

Serial transvaginal CL measurements are recommended between 16 0/7 and 24 0/7 weeks’ gestation for patients with a current singleton pregnancy and history of a spontaneous PTB, but not for patients with a history of iatrogenic or indicated PTB.

Interventions: Mind your p’s and c’s

Interventions to reduce the risk of spontaneous PTB depend on whether the current pregnancy is a singleton, twins, or higher-order multiples; CL measurement; and history of spontaneous PTB. Preconception optimization of underlying medical conditions also is important to reduce the risk of recurrent indicated PTB.

Continue to: Progesterone...

Progesterone

Vaginal administration. Several trials have shown that vaginal progesterone can be used to reduce the risk of spontaneous PTB in asymptomatic patients with a singleton pregnancy, incidental finding of a short cervix (<25 mm), and no history of spontaneous PTB. This is a change from the prior recommendation of CL of less than 20 mm. In the setting of a twin pregnancy, regardless of CL, data do not definitively support the use of vaginal progesterone.

Intramuscular administration.^4,5 The popularity of intramuscular progesterone has waxed and waned. At present, ACOG recommends that all patients with a singleton pregnancy and history of spontaneous PTB be offered progesterone beginning at 16 0/7 weeks’ gestation following a shared decision-making process that includes the limited data of efficacy noted in existing studies.

In a twin pregnancy with no history of spontaneous PTB, the use of intramuscular progesterone has been shown to potentially increase the risk of PTB and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. As such, intramuscular progesterone in the setting of a twin gestation without a history of spontaneous PTB is not recommended. When a prior spontaneous PTB has occurred, there may be some benefit to intramuscular progesterone in twin gestations.

Cerclage

Ultrasound indicated. In a singleton pregnancy with an incidental finding of short cervix (<25 mm) and no history of PTB, the use of cerclage is of uncertain benefit. Effectiveness may be seen if the cervix is less than 10 mm. Ultrasound-indicated cerclage should be considered in a singleton pregnancy with a CL less than 25 mm and a history of spontaneous PTB.

Possibly one of the most controversial topics is ultrasound-indicated cerclage placement in twin gestation. As with many situations in obstetrics, data regarding ultrasound-indicated cerclage in twin gestation is based on small retrospective studies fraught with bias. Results from these studies range from no benefit, to potential benefit, to even possible increased risk of PTB. Since data are limited, as we await more evidence, it is recommended that the clinician and patient use shared decision making to decide on cerclage placement in a twin gestation.

Exam indicated. In a singleton pregnancy with a dilated cervix on digital or speculum exam between 16 0/7 to 23 6/7 weeks’ gestation, a physical exam–indicated cerclage should be offered. Exam-indicated cerclage also may reduce the incidence of PTB in twin gestations with cervical dilation between 16 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks’ gestation. Indomethacin tocolysis and perioperative antibiotics should be considered when an exam-indicated cerclage is placed.

As the limits of viability are continually pushed earlier, more in-depth conversation is needed with patients who are considering an exam-indicated cerclage. The nuances of periviability and the likelihood that an exam-indicated cerclage will commit a pregnancy to a periviable or extremely preterm birth should be discussed in detail using a shared decision making model.

Regardless of whether the cerclage is ultrasound or exam indicated, once it is placed there is no utility in additional CL ultrasound monitoring.

Pessary

Vaginal pessaries for prevention of PTB have not gained popularity in the United States as they have in other countries. Trials are being conducted to determine the utility of vaginal pessary, but current data have not proven its effectiveness in preventing PTB in the setting of singleton pregnancy, short cervix, and no history of spontaneous PTB. So for now, pessary is not recommended. The same can be said for use in the twin gestation.

Which patients may benefit from antepartum fetal surveillance and when to initiate it

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Obstetrics Practice, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Indications for outpatient antenatal surveillance: ACOG committee opinion, number 828. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137:e177-e197.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics. Antepartum fetal surveillance: ACOG practice bulletin, number 229. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137:e116-e127.

The ultimate purpose of antenatal fetal surveillance is to prevent stillbirth. However, stillbirth has multiple etiologies, not all of which are preventable with testing. In June 2021, ACOG released a new Committee Opinion containing guidelines for fetal surveillance, including suggested gestational age at initiation and frequency of testing, for the most common high-risk conditions. ACOG also released an update to the Practice Bulletin on antepartum fetal surveillance; additions include randomized controlled trial level data on the utility of fetal kick counts (FKCs) and recommendations that align with the new Committee Opinion.

Data for the efficacy of antepartum fetal surveillance are lacking, mainly due to the difficulty of performing prospective studies in stillbirth. The existing evidence is subject to intervention bias, as deliveries increase in tested patients, and recommendations rely heavily on expert consensus and nonrandomized studies. Antenatal testing is also time, cost, and labor intensive, with the risk of intervention for a false-positive result. Despite these limitations, obstetrical practices routinely perform antenatal fetal surveillance.

The new guidelines: The why, when, and how often

Why. Antepartum fetal surveillance is suggested for conditions that have a risk of stillbirth greater than 0.8 per 1,000 (that is, the false-negative rate of a biophysical profile or a modified biophysical profile) and the relative risk or odds ratio is greater than 2.0 for stillbirth compared with unaffected pregnancies.

When. For most conditions, ACOG recommends initiation of testing at 32 weeks or later, with notable earlier exceptions for some of the highest-risk patients. For certain conditions, such as fetal growth restriction and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, the recommendation is to start “at diagnosis,” with the corollary “or at a gestational age when delivery would be considered because of abnormal results.” Shared decision making with the patient about pregnancy goals therefore is required, particularly in cases of fetal anomalies, genetic conditions, or at very early gestational ages.

How often. The recommended frequency of testing is at least weekly. Testing frequency should be increased to twice-weekly outpatient or daily inpatient for the most complicated pregnancies (for example, fetal growth restriction with abnormal umbilical artery Doppler studies, preeclampsia with severe features).

Once or twice weekly is an option for many conditions, which gives the clinician the opportunity to assess clinical stability as well as the patient’s input in terms of logistics and anxiety.

Patients with multiple conditions may fall into the “individualized” category, as do patients with suboptimal control of conditions (for example, diabetes, hypertension) that may affect the fetus as the pregnancy progresses.

New diagnoses included for surveillance

Several diagnoses not previously included now qualify for antepartum fetal surveillance under the new guidelines, most notably:

• history of obstetrical complications in the immediate preceding pregnancy

—history of prior fetal growth restriction requiring preterm delivery

—history of prior preeclampsia requiring delivery

• alcohol use of 5 or more drinks per day
• in vitro fertilization
• abnormal serum markers

—pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A) in the fifth or lower percentile or 0.4 multiples of the median (MoM)

—second trimester inhibin A of 2 or greater MoM

• prepregnancy body mass index (BMI)

—this is divided into 2 categories for timing of initiation of testing:

1.  37 weeks for BMI of 35 to 39.9 kg/m²
2.  34 weeks for BMI of or greater than 40 kg/m².

Fetal kick counts

The major change to the updated Practice Bulletin on antenatal surveillance is the inclusion of data on FKCs, a simple modality of fetal surveillance that does not require a clinical visit. For FKCs, a meta-analysis of more than 450,000 patients did not demonstrate a difference in perinatal death between the FKC intervention group (0.54%) and the control group (0.59%). Of note, there were small but statistically significant increases in the rates of induction of labor, cesarean delivery, and preterm delivery in the FKC intervention group. Therefore, this update does not recommend a formal program of FKCs for all patients.

Continue to: Use of antenatal corticosteroids now may be considered at 22 weeks’ gestation...

Use of antenatal corticosteroids now may be considered at 22 weeks’ gestation

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Use of antenatal corticosteroids at 22 weeks of gestation: ACOG practice advisory. September 2021. https://www .acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-advisory /articles/2021/09/use-of-antenatal-corticosteroids-at -22-weeks-of-gestation. Accessed December 11, 2021.

In September 2021, ACOG and SMFM released a Practice Advisory updating the current recommendations for the administration of antenatal corticosteroids in the periviable period (22 to 25 6/7 weeks’ gestation). Whereas the prior lower limit of gestational age for consideration of steroids was 23 weeks, the new recommendation now extends this consideration down to 22 weeks.

The cited data include a meta-analysis of more than 2,200 patients in which the survival rate of infants born between 22 and 22 6/7 weeks who were exposed to antenatal steroids was 39% compared with 19.5% in the unexposed group. Another study of more than 1,000 patients demonstrated a statistically significant increase in overall survival in patients treated with antenatal steroids plus life support compared with life support only (38.5% vs 17.7%). Survival without major morbidity in this study, although increased from 1% to 4.4%, was still low.

Recommendation carries caveats

Given this information, the Practice Advisory offers a 2C level recommendation (weak recommendation, low quality of evidence) for antenatal steroids at 22 to 22 6/7 weeks’ gestation if neonatal resuscitation is planned, acknowledging the limitations and potential bias of the available data.

The Practice Advisory emphasizes the importance of counseling and patient involvement in the decision making. This requires a multidisciplinary collaboration among the neonatology and obstetrical teams, flexibility in the plan after birth depending on the infant’s condition, and redirection of care if appropriate. Estimated fetal weight, the presence of multiple gestations, fetal biologic sex, and any anomalies are also important in helping families make an informed decision for their particular pregnancy. As described in the Obstetric Care Consensus on periviable birth,⁶ it is important to remember that considerations and recommendations are not the same as requirements, and redirection of care to comfort and family memory making is not the same as withholding care.

The rest of the recommendations for the administration of antenatal steroids remain the same: Antenatal steroids are not recommended at less than 22 weeks due to lack of evidence of benefit, and they continue to be recommended at 24 weeks and beyond. ●

Vinogradova Y, Dening T, Hippisley-Cox J, et al. Use of menopausal hormone therapy and risk of dementia: nested case-control studies using QResearch and CPRD databases. BMJ. 2021;374:n2182. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n2182.

Much interest has surrounded whether the use of menopausal HT impacts future risk of cognitive decline. Recently, Vinogradova and colleagues conducted an observational study using data from 2 large primary care databases, QResearch and the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), in the United Kingdom.¹ The investigators conducted case-control studies that included women aged 55 and older diagnosed with dementia and up to 5 controls without dementia. Only cases and controls with at least 10 years of medical records prior to the index date (that is, the time of dementia diagnosis in cases) were included. Since early symptoms of dementia prior to diagnosis may cause sleep problems and dysphoria (which also may be symptoms of menopause), HT prescriptions during the 3 years prior to the index date were excluded.

Details of the study

Among 16,291 cases and 68,726 controls, the women’s mean age was approximately 83 years. Cases were identified by using codes for dementia from patients’ clinical records or records of prescriptions for drugs used to treat dementia.

More than half the women were being treated for hypertension, and 14% of women in both groups had used HT. Women were considered users of estrogen-only therapy if they had no prescriptions containing a progestogen after their first prescription for systemic estrogen as the start of exposure to HT. Those with any subsequent prescription containing a progestogen were classified as combined HT users.

Results. In an analysis adjusted for all available potential confounders—including lifestyle factors, ethnicity, family history of dementia, early menopause, oophorectomy/ hysterectomy, comorbidities, and use of other relevant drugs—the use of HT was not associated with risk of dementia.

A reduced risk of dementia was noted among women who had been taking estrogen-only HT for 10 years or more (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76–0.94). An elevated risk of Alzheimer disease was noted among women who had used estrogen-progestin HT for 5 to 9 years (OR, 1.19; CI, 1.06–1.33).¹

Study strengths and limitations

The authors pointed out that this study’s main strengths were that it had a very large sample size representative of the general population and that its design permitted capture of all known cases as well as precision recording for prescribed drugs. On the other hand, the study is limited by the possible lack of data for some older women before the index date; that is, menopause in this latter group started before their registration or before these data were gathered electronically by their practice. ●

Vinogradova Y, Dening T, Hippisley-Cox J, et al. Use of menopausal hormone therapy and risk of dementia: nested case-control studies using QResearch and CPRD databases. BMJ. 2021;374:n2182. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n2182.

Much interest has surrounded whether the use of menopausal HT impacts future risk of cognitive decline. Recently, Vinogradova and colleagues conducted an observational study using data from 2 large primary care databases, QResearch and the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), in the United Kingdom.¹ The investigators conducted case-control studies that included women aged 55 and older diagnosed with dementia and up to 5 controls without dementia. Only cases and controls with at least 10 years of medical records prior to the index date (that is, the time of dementia diagnosis in cases) were included. Since early symptoms of dementia prior to diagnosis may cause sleep problems and dysphoria (which also may be symptoms of menopause), HT prescriptions during the 3 years prior to the index date were excluded.

Details of the study

Among 16,291 cases and 68,726 controls, the women’s mean age was approximately 83 years. Cases were identified by using codes for dementia from patients’ clinical records or records of prescriptions for drugs used to treat dementia.

More than half the women were being treated for hypertension, and 14% of women in both groups had used HT. Women were considered users of estrogen-only therapy if they had no prescriptions containing a progestogen after their first prescription for systemic estrogen as the start of exposure to HT. Those with any subsequent prescription containing a progestogen were classified as combined HT users.

Results. In an analysis adjusted for all available potential confounders—including lifestyle factors, ethnicity, family history of dementia, early menopause, oophorectomy/ hysterectomy, comorbidities, and use of other relevant drugs—the use of HT was not associated with risk of dementia.

A reduced risk of dementia was noted among women who had been taking estrogen-only HT for 10 years or more (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76–0.94). An elevated risk of Alzheimer disease was noted among women who had used estrogen-progestin HT for 5 to 9 years (OR, 1.19; CI, 1.06–1.33).¹

Study strengths and limitations

The authors pointed out that this study’s main strengths were that it had a very large sample size representative of the general population and that its design permitted capture of all known cases as well as precision recording for prescribed drugs. On the other hand, the study is limited by the possible lack of data for some older women before the index date; that is, menopause in this latter group started before their registration or before these data were gathered electronically by their practice. ●

Vinogradova Y, Dening T, Hippisley-Cox J, et al. Use of menopausal hormone therapy and risk of dementia: nested case-control studies using QResearch and CPRD databases. BMJ. 2021;374:n2182. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n2182.

Much interest has surrounded whether the use of menopausal HT impacts future risk of cognitive decline. Recently, Vinogradova and colleagues conducted an observational study using data from 2 large primary care databases, QResearch and the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), in the United Kingdom.¹ The investigators conducted case-control studies that included women aged 55 and older diagnosed with dementia and up to 5 controls without dementia. Only cases and controls with at least 10 years of medical records prior to the index date (that is, the time of dementia diagnosis in cases) were included. Since early symptoms of dementia prior to diagnosis may cause sleep problems and dysphoria (which also may be symptoms of menopause), HT prescriptions during the 3 years prior to the index date were excluded.

Details of the study

Among 16,291 cases and 68,726 controls, the women’s mean age was approximately 83 years. Cases were identified by using codes for dementia from patients’ clinical records or records of prescriptions for drugs used to treat dementia.

More than half the women were being treated for hypertension, and 14% of women in both groups had used HT. Women were considered users of estrogen-only therapy if they had no prescriptions containing a progestogen after their first prescription for systemic estrogen as the start of exposure to HT. Those with any subsequent prescription containing a progestogen were classified as combined HT users.

Results. In an analysis adjusted for all available potential confounders—including lifestyle factors, ethnicity, family history of dementia, early menopause, oophorectomy/ hysterectomy, comorbidities, and use of other relevant drugs—the use of HT was not associated with risk of dementia.

A reduced risk of dementia was noted among women who had been taking estrogen-only HT for 10 years or more (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76–0.94). An elevated risk of Alzheimer disease was noted among women who had used estrogen-progestin HT for 5 to 9 years (OR, 1.19; CI, 1.06–1.33).¹

Study strengths and limitations

The authors pointed out that this study’s main strengths were that it had a very large sample size representative of the general population and that its design permitted capture of all known cases as well as precision recording for prescribed drugs. On the other hand, the study is limited by the possible lack of data for some older women before the index date; that is, menopause in this latter group started before their registration or before these data were gathered electronically by their practice. ●

Migraine is a neurologic disease characterized by episodes of throbbing, often unilateral, headache. These attacks are associated with visual or other sensory symptoms (classic aura) related to the central nervous system, nausea, and vomiting, and are often set off or exacerbated by physical activity. The age-adjusted prevalence is estimated at 15.9% across all adults, but migraine is much more common in women, with a prevalence of 21% in women and 10.7% in men.

On the basis of the patient's history, clinical suspicion for chronic migraine should be high. Hemiplegic migraine usually presents with temporary unilateral hemiparesis, sometimes with speech disturbance. Attacks of chronic paroxysmal hemicrania are also unilateral but are characterized by their highly intense but short duration. Clinical suspicion for a space-occupying lesion should be raised in cases where patients with a history of headache present with new symptoms or abnormal signs.

The diagnosis of chronic migraine is a clinical one. The American Headache Society defines chronic migraine as at least five attacks of migraine-like or tension type–like headache that must fulfill specific criteria. If the migraine occurs with aura, it must occur 8 days or more per month for more than 3 months and be relieved by a triptan or ergot derivative. If the migraine occurs without aura, the same criteria apply, but it is important that the aforementioned signs and symptoms cannot be accounted for by another diagnosis.

For moderate or severe attacks, migraine-specific agents are recommended: triptans, dihydroergotamine (DHE), small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants), and selective serotonin (5-HT1F) receptor agonists (ditans). However, it is accepted that migraine treatment must be individualized, and that a trial-and-error period should be expected. Recent data suggest that about 30% of migraine patients who are prescribed a triptan have an insufficient response to this approach. Some research has shown that such patients have a better response after being switched to a second drug in the triptan class, while other studies have shown no difference. The patient in the current case might also be a candidate for preventive treatment, which should generally be considered when, in spite of acute treatment, migraine interferes with the patient's day-to-day routine or when attacks become frequent. The four CGRP monoclonal antibodies approved in the United States are eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab.

Angeliki Vgontzas, MD, Instructor, Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School; Associate Neurologist, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Brigham and Women's Faulkner Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Angeliki Vgontzas, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Migraine is a neurologic disease characterized by episodes of throbbing, often unilateral, headache. These attacks are associated with visual or other sensory symptoms (classic aura) related to the central nervous system, nausea, and vomiting, and are often set off or exacerbated by physical activity. The age-adjusted prevalence is estimated at 15.9% across all adults, but migraine is much more common in women, with a prevalence of 21% in women and 10.7% in men.

On the basis of the patient's history, clinical suspicion for chronic migraine should be high. Hemiplegic migraine usually presents with temporary unilateral hemiparesis, sometimes with speech disturbance. Attacks of chronic paroxysmal hemicrania are also unilateral but are characterized by their highly intense but short duration. Clinical suspicion for a space-occupying lesion should be raised in cases where patients with a history of headache present with new symptoms or abnormal signs.

The diagnosis of chronic migraine is a clinical one. The American Headache Society defines chronic migraine as at least five attacks of migraine-like or tension type–like headache that must fulfill specific criteria. If the migraine occurs with aura, it must occur 8 days or more per month for more than 3 months and be relieved by a triptan or ergot derivative. If the migraine occurs without aura, the same criteria apply, but it is important that the aforementioned signs and symptoms cannot be accounted for by another diagnosis.

For moderate or severe attacks, migraine-specific agents are recommended: triptans, dihydroergotamine (DHE), small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants), and selective serotonin (5-HT1F) receptor agonists (ditans). However, it is accepted that migraine treatment must be individualized, and that a trial-and-error period should be expected. Recent data suggest that about 30% of migraine patients who are prescribed a triptan have an insufficient response to this approach. Some research has shown that such patients have a better response after being switched to a second drug in the triptan class, while other studies have shown no difference. The patient in the current case might also be a candidate for preventive treatment, which should generally be considered when, in spite of acute treatment, migraine interferes with the patient's day-to-day routine or when attacks become frequent. The four CGRP monoclonal antibodies approved in the United States are eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab.

Angeliki Vgontzas, MD, Instructor, Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School; Associate Neurologist, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Brigham and Women's Faulkner Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Angeliki Vgontzas, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Migraine is a neurologic disease characterized by episodes of throbbing, often unilateral, headache. These attacks are associated with visual or other sensory symptoms (classic aura) related to the central nervous system, nausea, and vomiting, and are often set off or exacerbated by physical activity. The age-adjusted prevalence is estimated at 15.9% across all adults, but migraine is much more common in women, with a prevalence of 21% in women and 10.7% in men.

On the basis of the patient's history, clinical suspicion for chronic migraine should be high. Hemiplegic migraine usually presents with temporary unilateral hemiparesis, sometimes with speech disturbance. Attacks of chronic paroxysmal hemicrania are also unilateral but are characterized by their highly intense but short duration. Clinical suspicion for a space-occupying lesion should be raised in cases where patients with a history of headache present with new symptoms or abnormal signs.

The diagnosis of chronic migraine is a clinical one. The American Headache Society defines chronic migraine as at least five attacks of migraine-like or tension type–like headache that must fulfill specific criteria. If the migraine occurs with aura, it must occur 8 days or more per month for more than 3 months and be relieved by a triptan or ergot derivative. If the migraine occurs without aura, the same criteria apply, but it is important that the aforementioned signs and symptoms cannot be accounted for by another diagnosis.

For moderate or severe attacks, migraine-specific agents are recommended: triptans, dihydroergotamine (DHE), small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants), and selective serotonin (5-HT1F) receptor agonists (ditans). However, it is accepted that migraine treatment must be individualized, and that a trial-and-error period should be expected. Recent data suggest that about 30% of migraine patients who are prescribed a triptan have an insufficient response to this approach. Some research has shown that such patients have a better response after being switched to a second drug in the triptan class, while other studies have shown no difference. The patient in the current case might also be a candidate for preventive treatment, which should generally be considered when, in spite of acute treatment, migraine interferes with the patient's day-to-day routine or when attacks become frequent. The four CGRP monoclonal antibodies approved in the United States are eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab.

Angeliki Vgontzas, MD, Instructor, Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School; Associate Neurologist, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Brigham and Women's Faulkner Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Angeliki Vgontzas, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

For many years, sorafenib was the only FDA-approved systemic treatment for patients with uHCC. Initial case reports of remarkable responses of tumors to immunotherapy, and results of the Phase I/II CheckMate-040 clinical trial, led to the September 2017 FDA approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with uHCC after progression on sorafenib. Thereafter, several randomized clinical trials comparing sorafenib to immunotherapy and immunotherapy combinations were initiated, including the comparison of nivolumab to sorafenib. In June 2019 it was announced that this trial did not reach its prespecified endpoint, and the FDA approval for the uHCC indication was voluntarily withdrawn. In December 2021, Yau et al published the final results of the CheckMate-459 randomized trial that included 743 adult patients with advanced HCC randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (n=371) or sorafenib (n=372) in the first line setting.  The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The median OS was 16.4 months (95% CI 13.9–18.4) with nivolumab and 14.7 months (11.9–17.2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.72–1.02]; P = 0.075; minimum follow-up 22.8 months). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. The authors concluded that though first-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve OS compared with sorafenib, single-agent nivolumab might be considered a treatment option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors or antiangiogenic drugs are not safe.

Cheng et al reported an update on the outcomes of the IMbrave150 study, 12 months after the primary analysis. This study established atezolizumab and bevacizumab as the current standard of care for the initial systemic treatment of patients with uHCC. The median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-23.7) with atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 13.4 months (95% CI 11.4-16.9) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; descriptive P < 0.001). The overall response rate (ORR) was 30% with atezolizumab/bevacizumab, while treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 143 (43%) of 329 receiving atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 72 (46%) of 156 receiving sorafenib. Treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in 6 (2%) and 1 (<1%) patients. Therefore, atezolizumab/bevacizumab remains the first-line standard of care for patients with uHCC.

Finally, Jácome et al undertook a combined analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials (KEYNOTE-240, CheckMate-459, and IMbrave150), with 1,657 patients with uHCC and who were treated with either immunotherapy (n=985) or sorafenib (in the first-line setting) or placebo (in the sorafenib-refractory setting) (n=672). The conclusion of the meta-analysis was that checkpoint inhibitors were associated with superior OS (HR, 0.75; P = .006), progression-free survival (HR, 0.74; P = .03), and ORR (odds ratio [OR], 2.82; P < .001) and lower odds of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (OR, 0.44; P = .04) than the comparators, confirming that immunotherapy remains an integral part of the treatment of patients with uHCC.

For many years, sorafenib was the only FDA-approved systemic treatment for patients with uHCC. Initial case reports of remarkable responses of tumors to immunotherapy, and results of the Phase I/II CheckMate-040 clinical trial, led to the September 2017 FDA approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with uHCC after progression on sorafenib. Thereafter, several randomized clinical trials comparing sorafenib to immunotherapy and immunotherapy combinations were initiated, including the comparison of nivolumab to sorafenib. In June 2019 it was announced that this trial did not reach its prespecified endpoint, and the FDA approval for the uHCC indication was voluntarily withdrawn. In December 2021, Yau et al published the final results of the CheckMate-459 randomized trial that included 743 adult patients with advanced HCC randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (n=371) or sorafenib (n=372) in the first line setting.  The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The median OS was 16.4 months (95% CI 13.9–18.4) with nivolumab and 14.7 months (11.9–17.2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.72–1.02]; P = 0.075; minimum follow-up 22.8 months). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. The authors concluded that though first-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve OS compared with sorafenib, single-agent nivolumab might be considered a treatment option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors or antiangiogenic drugs are not safe.

Cheng et al reported an update on the outcomes of the IMbrave150 study, 12 months after the primary analysis. This study established atezolizumab and bevacizumab as the current standard of care for the initial systemic treatment of patients with uHCC. The median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-23.7) with atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 13.4 months (95% CI 11.4-16.9) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; descriptive P < 0.001). The overall response rate (ORR) was 30% with atezolizumab/bevacizumab, while treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 143 (43%) of 329 receiving atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 72 (46%) of 156 receiving sorafenib. Treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in 6 (2%) and 1 (<1%) patients. Therefore, atezolizumab/bevacizumab remains the first-line standard of care for patients with uHCC.

Finally, Jácome et al undertook a combined analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials (KEYNOTE-240, CheckMate-459, and IMbrave150), with 1,657 patients with uHCC and who were treated with either immunotherapy (n=985) or sorafenib (in the first-line setting) or placebo (in the sorafenib-refractory setting) (n=672). The conclusion of the meta-analysis was that checkpoint inhibitors were associated with superior OS (HR, 0.75; P = .006), progression-free survival (HR, 0.74; P = .03), and ORR (odds ratio [OR], 2.82; P < .001) and lower odds of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (OR, 0.44; P = .04) than the comparators, confirming that immunotherapy remains an integral part of the treatment of patients with uHCC.

For many years, sorafenib was the only FDA-approved systemic treatment for patients with uHCC. Initial case reports of remarkable responses of tumors to immunotherapy, and results of the Phase I/II CheckMate-040 clinical trial, led to the September 2017 FDA approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with uHCC after progression on sorafenib. Thereafter, several randomized clinical trials comparing sorafenib to immunotherapy and immunotherapy combinations were initiated, including the comparison of nivolumab to sorafenib. In June 2019 it was announced that this trial did not reach its prespecified endpoint, and the FDA approval for the uHCC indication was voluntarily withdrawn. In December 2021, Yau et al published the final results of the CheckMate-459 randomized trial that included 743 adult patients with advanced HCC randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab (n=371) or sorafenib (n=372) in the first line setting.  The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The median OS was 16.4 months (95% CI 13.9–18.4) with nivolumab and 14.7 months (11.9–17.2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.72–1.02]; P = 0.075; minimum follow-up 22.8 months). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. The authors concluded that though first-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve OS compared with sorafenib, single-agent nivolumab might be considered a treatment option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors or antiangiogenic drugs are not safe.

Cheng et al reported an update on the outcomes of the IMbrave150 study, 12 months after the primary analysis. This study established atezolizumab and bevacizumab as the current standard of care for the initial systemic treatment of patients with uHCC. The median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-23.7) with atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 13.4 months (95% CI 11.4-16.9) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; descriptive P < 0.001). The overall response rate (ORR) was 30% with atezolizumab/bevacizumab, while treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 143 (43%) of 329 receiving atezolizumab/bevacizumab and 72 (46%) of 156 receiving sorafenib. Treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in 6 (2%) and 1 (<1%) patients. Therefore, atezolizumab/bevacizumab remains the first-line standard of care for patients with uHCC.

Finally, Jácome et al undertook a combined analysis of 3 randomized controlled trials (KEYNOTE-240, CheckMate-459, and IMbrave150), with 1,657 patients with uHCC and who were treated with either immunotherapy (n=985) or sorafenib (in the first-line setting) or placebo (in the sorafenib-refractory setting) (n=672). The conclusion of the meta-analysis was that checkpoint inhibitors were associated with superior OS (HR, 0.75; P = .006), progression-free survival (HR, 0.74; P = .03), and ORR (odds ratio [OR], 2.82; P < .001) and lower odds of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (OR, 0.44; P = .04) than the comparators, confirming that immunotherapy remains an integral part of the treatment of patients with uHCC.

Health care’s modern-day version of the Greek chorus is growing louder and more persistent. My colleagues and I have long been among them.

In news conferences, journal articles, and podcasts, this chorus is pleading with the public to pay attention to its message: SARs-CoV-2 is not done with us. Omicron can kill; it can infect the vaccinated.

We have found, like everyone else, that Omicron runs on its rules; with Delta, two vaccine shots were able to lower the positivity rate. With Omicron, two shots have not been enough.

The WHO used the word “surprise” in its November announcement that Omicron was a variant of “concern.”

So did Trevor Bedford, a computational biologist and infectious disease scientist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, who said that Omicron “took me and everyone by surprise.”¹ Speaking on KevinMD’s podcast, he told his host that with the degree of immunity in the global population, he was expecting subsequent evolving strains to have minor, subtle genetic mutations, akin to how flu varies from year to year. What was a surprise was the giant leap in evolution that occurred with Omicron, which contains 36 mutations in the spike protein and approximately 50 mutations in total. Because of these mutations, the original two-shot mRNA COVID vaccines becomes only 40% effective against symptomatic disease after several months (thankfully a booster shot increases this to ~80%).² But the decreased vaccine protection without a booster, along with relaxation of mitigation measures, brought us to where we are now.

In Chicago, we knew the Omicron variant would move quickly, considering how it moved through South Africa and the United Kingdom. What we didn’t anticipate was that in one week’s time, our hospital would need to add another 100 dedicated COVID ICU beds. Nor did we anticipate the extent that Omicron would affect staffing levels in the same amount of time.

At our hospital, we have eliminated elective surgeries that require a hospital stay, which includes surgeries for cancer. One of my colleagues, Ryan Merkow, MD, a surgical oncologist, remarked recently he had to cancel half of his scheduled surgeries because of a lack of hospital space.³

Dispelling Myths

What is concerning about this current wave is how many unvaccinated are hospitalized. Because Omicron is so infectious and because of lower vaccination rates in younger adults and children, we have a younger group of adults and children admitted with COVID, who had been uninfected by previous surges.

A major myth that makes health care workers so frustrated is the tale that Omicron is milder. Unvaccinated people infected with this variant are seriously ill and are dying. Despite its “mild” label, once a patient is hospitalized, Omicron can be just as severe as its predecessors.⁴ For many, getting vaccinated is the difference between staying at home with some symptoms and being in the ICU.

As of January 10, according to the CDC, although 88% of people over the age of 65 are vaccinated, only 37.5% have gotten boosters which are key to restoring protection against Omicron. And among children, only 54% between 12- and 17-years-old are fully vaccinated, and a mere 17% of children aged 5 to 11 have gotten both of their shots.

Remember the conversations regarding natural immunity? Omicron has muffled that conversation. Those who have been infected with SARS-Co-V2 before can still get infected and very ill with Omicron. So now is the time to get vaccinated.

Transmissibility

We knew SARS-CoV-2 could spread 1 of 2 ways: large virus-carrying droplets that enter through the nose, mouth, and eyes, as well as miniscule airborne droplets of virus that float in the air and travel further than 6 feet. However, prior to Omicron, transmission of these smaller droplets via the air was not as frequent. But with Omicron, while it still travels by larger respiratory droplets, it appears to have more airborne spread.

In late December, The Lancet Regional Health published results of research conducted one month earlier at a designated quarantine hotel in Hong Kong.⁵ The index case was housed in the room across a hallway from the second case, who developed their case 8 days into quarantine. Testing showed the Omicron variant in both cases. Environmental testing of the walls and ceiling suggested airborne spread of the virus in places unreachable by large respiratory droplets.

Now with Omicron, people need to wear high-filtering masks that fit tight against the face, such as a N95, KN-95, or KF-94 if possible. And when removing the mask to eat and drink, one should be in well-ventilated areas, away from others.

People should avoid getting Omicron, regardless of vaccination status. This variant is so infectious that, compared to the Delta variant, people are twice as likely to infect others that live with them. And infecting others leads to a chain of transmission that can close schools, take over hospital beds, and disable or kill the most vulnerable in our communities.

Public and private behavior, and public policy

In July, months before that WHO announced Omicron’s existence, Rella and colleagues reported in Scientific Reports on the outcome of a new model designed to show how a vaccine-resistant strain could rapidly transmit through a highly vaccinated population if transmission mitigation interventions are dropped too soon.⁶

The authors wrote that the success of a vaccine-resistant strain making inroads into a population depends on the obvious – it finds populations with a low rate of vaccination. What is not so obvious, the authors wrote, is that a vaccine-resistant virus does its worst when transmission is not well controlled in a highly vaccinated population. What can prevent a surge like this are social behaviors and public policy that decrease the chain of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, such as vaccination, masking, and testing.

It is people’s behavior, and ineffective public policy, that are so frustrating to us. The WHO’s secretary general warned against relying solely on vaccines in December. “Vaccines alone will not get any country out of this crisis.”

Omicron takes a new mindset. What we were doing before is not protecting now. Unchecked spread is overwhelming our health care systems and putting the vulnerable in our population at risk. The ramification of this unchecked spread reaches everywhere – into the economy, our educational system, and our nation’s mental health.

When the pandemic started, the policies to control its spread rested on local government and public agencies; we all would have been better served had there been a unified, national response to an infectious threat that does not obey municipal or state boundaries.

 The universal sentiment among health care workers is frustration with local and state governments that are either dictating policy that can harm the public we are trying to protect.

As of September, at least 23 state legislatures have passed laws changing a governor’s executive power reach. Many have taken it away. Others are fighting in the courts over mask mandates.

As for when the pandemic will subside, that appears to be up to the public and public policy makers. They will determine how long this will last and how many will die or be disabled before its end.

Health care’s modern-day version of the Greek chorus is growing louder and more persistent. My colleagues and I have long been among them.

In news conferences, journal articles, and podcasts, this chorus is pleading with the public to pay attention to its message: SARs-CoV-2 is not done with us. Omicron can kill; it can infect the vaccinated.

We have found, like everyone else, that Omicron runs on its rules; with Delta, two vaccine shots were able to lower the positivity rate. With Omicron, two shots have not been enough.

The WHO used the word “surprise” in its November announcement that Omicron was a variant of “concern.”

So did Trevor Bedford, a computational biologist and infectious disease scientist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, who said that Omicron “took me and everyone by surprise.”¹ Speaking on KevinMD’s podcast, he told his host that with the degree of immunity in the global population, he was expecting subsequent evolving strains to have minor, subtle genetic mutations, akin to how flu varies from year to year. What was a surprise was the giant leap in evolution that occurred with Omicron, which contains 36 mutations in the spike protein and approximately 50 mutations in total. Because of these mutations, the original two-shot mRNA COVID vaccines becomes only 40% effective against symptomatic disease after several months (thankfully a booster shot increases this to ~80%).² But the decreased vaccine protection without a booster, along with relaxation of mitigation measures, brought us to where we are now.

In Chicago, we knew the Omicron variant would move quickly, considering how it moved through South Africa and the United Kingdom. What we didn’t anticipate was that in one week’s time, our hospital would need to add another 100 dedicated COVID ICU beds. Nor did we anticipate the extent that Omicron would affect staffing levels in the same amount of time.

At our hospital, we have eliminated elective surgeries that require a hospital stay, which includes surgeries for cancer. One of my colleagues, Ryan Merkow, MD, a surgical oncologist, remarked recently he had to cancel half of his scheduled surgeries because of a lack of hospital space.³

Dispelling Myths

What is concerning about this current wave is how many unvaccinated are hospitalized. Because Omicron is so infectious and because of lower vaccination rates in younger adults and children, we have a younger group of adults and children admitted with COVID, who had been uninfected by previous surges.

A major myth that makes health care workers so frustrated is the tale that Omicron is milder. Unvaccinated people infected with this variant are seriously ill and are dying. Despite its “mild” label, once a patient is hospitalized, Omicron can be just as severe as its predecessors.⁴ For many, getting vaccinated is the difference between staying at home with some symptoms and being in the ICU.

As of January 10, according to the CDC, although 88% of people over the age of 65 are vaccinated, only 37.5% have gotten boosters which are key to restoring protection against Omicron. And among children, only 54% between 12- and 17-years-old are fully vaccinated, and a mere 17% of children aged 5 to 11 have gotten both of their shots.

Remember the conversations regarding natural immunity? Omicron has muffled that conversation. Those who have been infected with SARS-Co-V2 before can still get infected and very ill with Omicron. So now is the time to get vaccinated.

Transmissibility

We knew SARS-CoV-2 could spread 1 of 2 ways: large virus-carrying droplets that enter through the nose, mouth, and eyes, as well as miniscule airborne droplets of virus that float in the air and travel further than 6 feet. However, prior to Omicron, transmission of these smaller droplets via the air was not as frequent. But with Omicron, while it still travels by larger respiratory droplets, it appears to have more airborne spread.

In late December, The Lancet Regional Health published results of research conducted one month earlier at a designated quarantine hotel in Hong Kong.⁵ The index case was housed in the room across a hallway from the second case, who developed their case 8 days into quarantine. Testing showed the Omicron variant in both cases. Environmental testing of the walls and ceiling suggested airborne spread of the virus in places unreachable by large respiratory droplets.

Now with Omicron, people need to wear high-filtering masks that fit tight against the face, such as a N95, KN-95, or KF-94 if possible. And when removing the mask to eat and drink, one should be in well-ventilated areas, away from others.

People should avoid getting Omicron, regardless of vaccination status. This variant is so infectious that, compared to the Delta variant, people are twice as likely to infect others that live with them. And infecting others leads to a chain of transmission that can close schools, take over hospital beds, and disable or kill the most vulnerable in our communities.

Public and private behavior, and public policy

In July, months before that WHO announced Omicron’s existence, Rella and colleagues reported in Scientific Reports on the outcome of a new model designed to show how a vaccine-resistant strain could rapidly transmit through a highly vaccinated population if transmission mitigation interventions are dropped too soon.⁶

The authors wrote that the success of a vaccine-resistant strain making inroads into a population depends on the obvious – it finds populations with a low rate of vaccination. What is not so obvious, the authors wrote, is that a vaccine-resistant virus does its worst when transmission is not well controlled in a highly vaccinated population. What can prevent a surge like this are social behaviors and public policy that decrease the chain of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, such as vaccination, masking, and testing.

It is people’s behavior, and ineffective public policy, that are so frustrating to us. The WHO’s secretary general warned against relying solely on vaccines in December. “Vaccines alone will not get any country out of this crisis.”

Omicron takes a new mindset. What we were doing before is not protecting now. Unchecked spread is overwhelming our health care systems and putting the vulnerable in our population at risk. The ramification of this unchecked spread reaches everywhere – into the economy, our educational system, and our nation’s mental health.

When the pandemic started, the policies to control its spread rested on local government and public agencies; we all would have been better served had there been a unified, national response to an infectious threat that does not obey municipal or state boundaries.

 The universal sentiment among health care workers is frustration with local and state governments that are either dictating policy that can harm the public we are trying to protect.

As of September, at least 23 state legislatures have passed laws changing a governor’s executive power reach. Many have taken it away. Others are fighting in the courts over mask mandates.

As for when the pandemic will subside, that appears to be up to the public and public policy makers. They will determine how long this will last and how many will die or be disabled before its end.

Health care’s modern-day version of the Greek chorus is growing louder and more persistent. My colleagues and I have long been among them.

In news conferences, journal articles, and podcasts, this chorus is pleading with the public to pay attention to its message: SARs-CoV-2 is not done with us. Omicron can kill; it can infect the vaccinated.

We have found, like everyone else, that Omicron runs on its rules; with Delta, two vaccine shots were able to lower the positivity rate. With Omicron, two shots have not been enough.

The WHO used the word “surprise” in its November announcement that Omicron was a variant of “concern.”

So did Trevor Bedford, a computational biologist and infectious disease scientist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, who said that Omicron “took me and everyone by surprise.”¹ Speaking on KevinMD’s podcast, he told his host that with the degree of immunity in the global population, he was expecting subsequent evolving strains to have minor, subtle genetic mutations, akin to how flu varies from year to year. What was a surprise was the giant leap in evolution that occurred with Omicron, which contains 36 mutations in the spike protein and approximately 50 mutations in total. Because of these mutations, the original two-shot mRNA COVID vaccines becomes only 40% effective against symptomatic disease after several months (thankfully a booster shot increases this to ~80%).² But the decreased vaccine protection without a booster, along with relaxation of mitigation measures, brought us to where we are now.

In Chicago, we knew the Omicron variant would move quickly, considering how it moved through South Africa and the United Kingdom. What we didn’t anticipate was that in one week’s time, our hospital would need to add another 100 dedicated COVID ICU beds. Nor did we anticipate the extent that Omicron would affect staffing levels in the same amount of time.

At our hospital, we have eliminated elective surgeries that require a hospital stay, which includes surgeries for cancer. One of my colleagues, Ryan Merkow, MD, a surgical oncologist, remarked recently he had to cancel half of his scheduled surgeries because of a lack of hospital space.³

Dispelling Myths

What is concerning about this current wave is how many unvaccinated are hospitalized. Because Omicron is so infectious and because of lower vaccination rates in younger adults and children, we have a younger group of adults and children admitted with COVID, who had been uninfected by previous surges.

A major myth that makes health care workers so frustrated is the tale that Omicron is milder. Unvaccinated people infected with this variant are seriously ill and are dying. Despite its “mild” label, once a patient is hospitalized, Omicron can be just as severe as its predecessors.⁴ For many, getting vaccinated is the difference between staying at home with some symptoms and being in the ICU.

As of January 10, according to the CDC, although 88% of people over the age of 65 are vaccinated, only 37.5% have gotten boosters which are key to restoring protection against Omicron. And among children, only 54% between 12- and 17-years-old are fully vaccinated, and a mere 17% of children aged 5 to 11 have gotten both of their shots.

Remember the conversations regarding natural immunity? Omicron has muffled that conversation. Those who have been infected with SARS-Co-V2 before can still get infected and very ill with Omicron. So now is the time to get vaccinated.

Transmissibility

We knew SARS-CoV-2 could spread 1 of 2 ways: large virus-carrying droplets that enter through the nose, mouth, and eyes, as well as miniscule airborne droplets of virus that float in the air and travel further than 6 feet. However, prior to Omicron, transmission of these smaller droplets via the air was not as frequent. But with Omicron, while it still travels by larger respiratory droplets, it appears to have more airborne spread.

In late December, The Lancet Regional Health published results of research conducted one month earlier at a designated quarantine hotel in Hong Kong.⁵ The index case was housed in the room across a hallway from the second case, who developed their case 8 days into quarantine. Testing showed the Omicron variant in both cases. Environmental testing of the walls and ceiling suggested airborne spread of the virus in places unreachable by large respiratory droplets.

Now with Omicron, people need to wear high-filtering masks that fit tight against the face, such as a N95, KN-95, or KF-94 if possible. And when removing the mask to eat and drink, one should be in well-ventilated areas, away from others.

People should avoid getting Omicron, regardless of vaccination status. This variant is so infectious that, compared to the Delta variant, people are twice as likely to infect others that live with them. And infecting others leads to a chain of transmission that can close schools, take over hospital beds, and disable or kill the most vulnerable in our communities.

Public and private behavior, and public policy

In July, months before that WHO announced Omicron’s existence, Rella and colleagues reported in Scientific Reports on the outcome of a new model designed to show how a vaccine-resistant strain could rapidly transmit through a highly vaccinated population if transmission mitigation interventions are dropped too soon.⁶

The authors wrote that the success of a vaccine-resistant strain making inroads into a population depends on the obvious – it finds populations with a low rate of vaccination. What is not so obvious, the authors wrote, is that a vaccine-resistant virus does its worst when transmission is not well controlled in a highly vaccinated population. What can prevent a surge like this are social behaviors and public policy that decrease the chain of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, such as vaccination, masking, and testing.

It is people’s behavior, and ineffective public policy, that are so frustrating to us. The WHO’s secretary general warned against relying solely on vaccines in December. “Vaccines alone will not get any country out of this crisis.”

Omicron takes a new mindset. What we were doing before is not protecting now. Unchecked spread is overwhelming our health care systems and putting the vulnerable in our population at risk. The ramification of this unchecked spread reaches everywhere – into the economy, our educational system, and our nation’s mental health.

When the pandemic started, the policies to control its spread rested on local government and public agencies; we all would have been better served had there been a unified, national response to an infectious threat that does not obey municipal or state boundaries.

 The universal sentiment among health care workers is frustration with local and state governments that are either dictating policy that can harm the public we are trying to protect.

As of September, at least 23 state legislatures have passed laws changing a governor’s executive power reach. Many have taken it away. Others are fighting in the courts over mask mandates.

As for when the pandemic will subside, that appears to be up to the public and public policy makers. They will determine how long this will last and how many will die or be disabled before its end.