User login
Q&A: Meeting the challenge of giving COVID vaccines to younger kids
This news organization spoke to several pediatric experts to get answers.
More than 6 million children and adolescents (up to age 18 years) in the United States have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Children represent about 17% of all cases, and an estimated 0.1%-2% of infected children end up hospitalized, according to Oct. 28 data from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Physicians and other health care practitioners are gearing up for what could be an influx of patients. “Pediatricians are standing by to talk with families about the vaccine and to administer the vaccine to children as soon as possible,” Lee Savio Beers, MD, FAAP, president of the AAP, said in a statement.
In this Q&A, this news organization asked for additional advice from Sara “Sally” Goza, MD, a pediatrician in Fayetteville, Georgia, and immediate past president of the AAP; Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and codirector of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, both in Houston; and Danielle M. Zerr, MD, professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at the University of Washington, Seattle, and medical director of infection prevention at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
Q: How are smaller pediatric practices and solo practitioners going to handle the additional vaccinations?
Dr. Goza: It’s a scheduling challenge with this rollout and all the people who want it and want it right now. They’re going to want it this week.
I’ve actually had some children asking their moms: “When can I get it? When can I get it?” It’s been very interesting – they are chomping at the bit.
If I give the vaccine to a patient this week, in 3 weeks the second dose will be right around Thanksgiving. No one in my office is going to want to be here to give the shot on Thanksgiving, and no patient is going to want to come in on Thanksgiving weekend. So I’m trying to delay those parents – saying, let’s do it next week. That way we’re not messing up a holiday.
Children are going to need two doses, and they won’t be fully protected until 2 weeks after their second dose. So they won’t get full protection for Thanksgiving, but they will have full protection for Christmas.
I know there are a lot of pediatricians who have preordered the vaccine. I know in our office they sent us an email ... to let us know our vaccines are being shipped. So I think a lot of pediatricians are going to have the vaccine.
Q: How should pediatricians counsel parents who are fearful or hesitant?
Dr. Hotez: It’s important to emphasize the severity of the 2021 summer Delta epidemic in children. We need to get beyond this false narrative that COVID only produces a mild disease in children. It’s caused thousands of pediatric hospitalizations, not to mention long COVID.
Dr. Zerr: It is key to find out what concerns parents have and then focus on answering their specific questions. It is helpful to emphasize the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and to explain the rigorous processes that the vaccine went through to receive Food and Drug Administration approval.
Q: How should pediatricians counter any misinformation/disinformation out there about the COVID-19 vaccines?
Dr. Goza: The most important thing is not to discount what they are saying. Don’t say: “That’s crazy” or “That’s not true.” Don’t roll your eyes and say: “Really, you’re going to believe all that?”
Instead, have a conversation with them about why we think that is not true, or why we know that’s not true. We really have to have that relationship and ask: “Well, what are your concerns?” And then really counter (any misinformation) with facts, with science, and based on your experience.
Q: Do the data presented to the FDA and the CDC about the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine for 5- to 11-year-olds seem robust to you?
Dr. Zerr: Yes, and data collection will be ongoing.
Dr. Hotez: I’ve only seen what’s publicly available so far, and it seems to support moving forward with emergency use authorization. The only shortfall is the size, roughly 2,200 children, which would not be of sufficient size to detect a rare safety signal.
Q: Do previous controversies around pediatric vaccines (for example, the MMR vaccine and autism) give pediatricians some background and experience so they can address any pushback on the COVID-19 vaccines?
Dr. Goza: Pediatricians have been dealing with vaccine hesitancy for a while now, ever since the MMR and autism controversy started. Even before then, there were certain groups of people who didn’t want vaccines.
We’ve really worked hard at helping teach pediatricians how to deal with the misinformation, how to counter it, and how to help parents understand the vaccines are safe and effective – and that they save lives.
That (experience) will help us in some ways. Unfortunately, there is more misinformation out there – there is almost a concerted effort on misinformation. It’s big.
Pediatricians will do everything we can, but we need help countering it. We need the misinformation to quit getting spread on social media. We can talk one on one with patients and families, but if all they are hearing on social media is the misinformation, it’s really hard.
Q: Are pediatricians, especially solo practitioners or pediatricians at smaller practices, going to face challenges with multidose vials and not wasting vaccine product?
Dr. Goza: I’m at a small practice. We have 3.5 FTEs (full-time equivalents) of MDs and three FTEs of nurse practitioners. So we’re not that big – about six providers.
You know, it is a challenge. We’re not going to buy the super-duper freezer, and we’re not going to be able to store these vaccines for a long period of time.
So when we order, we need smaller amounts. For the 12- to 18-year-olds, [maximum storage] was 45 days. Now for the 5- to 11-year-olds, we’re going to be able to store the vaccine in the refrigerator for 10 weeks, which gives us more leeway there.
We try to do all of vaccinations on 1 day, so we know how many people are coming in, and we are not going to waste too many doses.
Our Department of Public Health in Georgia has said: “We want these vaccines in the arms of kids, and if you have to waste some doses, don’t worry about it.” But it’s a 10-dose vial. It’s going to be hard for me to open it up for one child. I just don’t like wasting anything like this.
Our main goal is to get this vaccine in to the arms of children whose parents want it.
Q: What are some additional sources of information for pediatricians?
Dr. Zerr: There are a lot of great resources on vaccine hesitancy from reputable sources, including these from the CDC and from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine:
- Building Confidence With OVID-19 Vaccines
- How to Talk With Parents About COVID-19 Vaccination
- Strategies for Building Confidence in the COVID-19 Vaccines
- Communication Strategies for Building Confidence in COVID-19 Vaccines: Addressing Variants and Childhood Vaccinations
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This news organization spoke to several pediatric experts to get answers.
More than 6 million children and adolescents (up to age 18 years) in the United States have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Children represent about 17% of all cases, and an estimated 0.1%-2% of infected children end up hospitalized, according to Oct. 28 data from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Physicians and other health care practitioners are gearing up for what could be an influx of patients. “Pediatricians are standing by to talk with families about the vaccine and to administer the vaccine to children as soon as possible,” Lee Savio Beers, MD, FAAP, president of the AAP, said in a statement.
In this Q&A, this news organization asked for additional advice from Sara “Sally” Goza, MD, a pediatrician in Fayetteville, Georgia, and immediate past president of the AAP; Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and codirector of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, both in Houston; and Danielle M. Zerr, MD, professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at the University of Washington, Seattle, and medical director of infection prevention at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
Q: How are smaller pediatric practices and solo practitioners going to handle the additional vaccinations?
Dr. Goza: It’s a scheduling challenge with this rollout and all the people who want it and want it right now. They’re going to want it this week.
I’ve actually had some children asking their moms: “When can I get it? When can I get it?” It’s been very interesting – they are chomping at the bit.
If I give the vaccine to a patient this week, in 3 weeks the second dose will be right around Thanksgiving. No one in my office is going to want to be here to give the shot on Thanksgiving, and no patient is going to want to come in on Thanksgiving weekend. So I’m trying to delay those parents – saying, let’s do it next week. That way we’re not messing up a holiday.
Children are going to need two doses, and they won’t be fully protected until 2 weeks after their second dose. So they won’t get full protection for Thanksgiving, but they will have full protection for Christmas.
I know there are a lot of pediatricians who have preordered the vaccine. I know in our office they sent us an email ... to let us know our vaccines are being shipped. So I think a lot of pediatricians are going to have the vaccine.
Q: How should pediatricians counsel parents who are fearful or hesitant?
Dr. Hotez: It’s important to emphasize the severity of the 2021 summer Delta epidemic in children. We need to get beyond this false narrative that COVID only produces a mild disease in children. It’s caused thousands of pediatric hospitalizations, not to mention long COVID.
Dr. Zerr: It is key to find out what concerns parents have and then focus on answering their specific questions. It is helpful to emphasize the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and to explain the rigorous processes that the vaccine went through to receive Food and Drug Administration approval.
Q: How should pediatricians counter any misinformation/disinformation out there about the COVID-19 vaccines?
Dr. Goza: The most important thing is not to discount what they are saying. Don’t say: “That’s crazy” or “That’s not true.” Don’t roll your eyes and say: “Really, you’re going to believe all that?”
Instead, have a conversation with them about why we think that is not true, or why we know that’s not true. We really have to have that relationship and ask: “Well, what are your concerns?” And then really counter (any misinformation) with facts, with science, and based on your experience.
Q: Do the data presented to the FDA and the CDC about the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine for 5- to 11-year-olds seem robust to you?
Dr. Zerr: Yes, and data collection will be ongoing.
Dr. Hotez: I’ve only seen what’s publicly available so far, and it seems to support moving forward with emergency use authorization. The only shortfall is the size, roughly 2,200 children, which would not be of sufficient size to detect a rare safety signal.
Q: Do previous controversies around pediatric vaccines (for example, the MMR vaccine and autism) give pediatricians some background and experience so they can address any pushback on the COVID-19 vaccines?
Dr. Goza: Pediatricians have been dealing with vaccine hesitancy for a while now, ever since the MMR and autism controversy started. Even before then, there were certain groups of people who didn’t want vaccines.
We’ve really worked hard at helping teach pediatricians how to deal with the misinformation, how to counter it, and how to help parents understand the vaccines are safe and effective – and that they save lives.
That (experience) will help us in some ways. Unfortunately, there is more misinformation out there – there is almost a concerted effort on misinformation. It’s big.
Pediatricians will do everything we can, but we need help countering it. We need the misinformation to quit getting spread on social media. We can talk one on one with patients and families, but if all they are hearing on social media is the misinformation, it’s really hard.
Q: Are pediatricians, especially solo practitioners or pediatricians at smaller practices, going to face challenges with multidose vials and not wasting vaccine product?
Dr. Goza: I’m at a small practice. We have 3.5 FTEs (full-time equivalents) of MDs and three FTEs of nurse practitioners. So we’re not that big – about six providers.
You know, it is a challenge. We’re not going to buy the super-duper freezer, and we’re not going to be able to store these vaccines for a long period of time.
So when we order, we need smaller amounts. For the 12- to 18-year-olds, [maximum storage] was 45 days. Now for the 5- to 11-year-olds, we’re going to be able to store the vaccine in the refrigerator for 10 weeks, which gives us more leeway there.
We try to do all of vaccinations on 1 day, so we know how many people are coming in, and we are not going to waste too many doses.
Our Department of Public Health in Georgia has said: “We want these vaccines in the arms of kids, and if you have to waste some doses, don’t worry about it.” But it’s a 10-dose vial. It’s going to be hard for me to open it up for one child. I just don’t like wasting anything like this.
Our main goal is to get this vaccine in to the arms of children whose parents want it.
Q: What are some additional sources of information for pediatricians?
Dr. Zerr: There are a lot of great resources on vaccine hesitancy from reputable sources, including these from the CDC and from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine:
- Building Confidence With OVID-19 Vaccines
- How to Talk With Parents About COVID-19 Vaccination
- Strategies for Building Confidence in the COVID-19 Vaccines
- Communication Strategies for Building Confidence in COVID-19 Vaccines: Addressing Variants and Childhood Vaccinations
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This news organization spoke to several pediatric experts to get answers.
More than 6 million children and adolescents (up to age 18 years) in the United States have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Children represent about 17% of all cases, and an estimated 0.1%-2% of infected children end up hospitalized, according to Oct. 28 data from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Physicians and other health care practitioners are gearing up for what could be an influx of patients. “Pediatricians are standing by to talk with families about the vaccine and to administer the vaccine to children as soon as possible,” Lee Savio Beers, MD, FAAP, president of the AAP, said in a statement.
In this Q&A, this news organization asked for additional advice from Sara “Sally” Goza, MD, a pediatrician in Fayetteville, Georgia, and immediate past president of the AAP; Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and codirector of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, both in Houston; and Danielle M. Zerr, MD, professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at the University of Washington, Seattle, and medical director of infection prevention at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
Q: How are smaller pediatric practices and solo practitioners going to handle the additional vaccinations?
Dr. Goza: It’s a scheduling challenge with this rollout and all the people who want it and want it right now. They’re going to want it this week.
I’ve actually had some children asking their moms: “When can I get it? When can I get it?” It’s been very interesting – they are chomping at the bit.
If I give the vaccine to a patient this week, in 3 weeks the second dose will be right around Thanksgiving. No one in my office is going to want to be here to give the shot on Thanksgiving, and no patient is going to want to come in on Thanksgiving weekend. So I’m trying to delay those parents – saying, let’s do it next week. That way we’re not messing up a holiday.
Children are going to need two doses, and they won’t be fully protected until 2 weeks after their second dose. So they won’t get full protection for Thanksgiving, but they will have full protection for Christmas.
I know there are a lot of pediatricians who have preordered the vaccine. I know in our office they sent us an email ... to let us know our vaccines are being shipped. So I think a lot of pediatricians are going to have the vaccine.
Q: How should pediatricians counsel parents who are fearful or hesitant?
Dr. Hotez: It’s important to emphasize the severity of the 2021 summer Delta epidemic in children. We need to get beyond this false narrative that COVID only produces a mild disease in children. It’s caused thousands of pediatric hospitalizations, not to mention long COVID.
Dr. Zerr: It is key to find out what concerns parents have and then focus on answering their specific questions. It is helpful to emphasize the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and to explain the rigorous processes that the vaccine went through to receive Food and Drug Administration approval.
Q: How should pediatricians counter any misinformation/disinformation out there about the COVID-19 vaccines?
Dr. Goza: The most important thing is not to discount what they are saying. Don’t say: “That’s crazy” or “That’s not true.” Don’t roll your eyes and say: “Really, you’re going to believe all that?”
Instead, have a conversation with them about why we think that is not true, or why we know that’s not true. We really have to have that relationship and ask: “Well, what are your concerns?” And then really counter (any misinformation) with facts, with science, and based on your experience.
Q: Do the data presented to the FDA and the CDC about the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine for 5- to 11-year-olds seem robust to you?
Dr. Zerr: Yes, and data collection will be ongoing.
Dr. Hotez: I’ve only seen what’s publicly available so far, and it seems to support moving forward with emergency use authorization. The only shortfall is the size, roughly 2,200 children, which would not be of sufficient size to detect a rare safety signal.
Q: Do previous controversies around pediatric vaccines (for example, the MMR vaccine and autism) give pediatricians some background and experience so they can address any pushback on the COVID-19 vaccines?
Dr. Goza: Pediatricians have been dealing with vaccine hesitancy for a while now, ever since the MMR and autism controversy started. Even before then, there were certain groups of people who didn’t want vaccines.
We’ve really worked hard at helping teach pediatricians how to deal with the misinformation, how to counter it, and how to help parents understand the vaccines are safe and effective – and that they save lives.
That (experience) will help us in some ways. Unfortunately, there is more misinformation out there – there is almost a concerted effort on misinformation. It’s big.
Pediatricians will do everything we can, but we need help countering it. We need the misinformation to quit getting spread on social media. We can talk one on one with patients and families, but if all they are hearing on social media is the misinformation, it’s really hard.
Q: Are pediatricians, especially solo practitioners or pediatricians at smaller practices, going to face challenges with multidose vials and not wasting vaccine product?
Dr. Goza: I’m at a small practice. We have 3.5 FTEs (full-time equivalents) of MDs and three FTEs of nurse practitioners. So we’re not that big – about six providers.
You know, it is a challenge. We’re not going to buy the super-duper freezer, and we’re not going to be able to store these vaccines for a long period of time.
So when we order, we need smaller amounts. For the 12- to 18-year-olds, [maximum storage] was 45 days. Now for the 5- to 11-year-olds, we’re going to be able to store the vaccine in the refrigerator for 10 weeks, which gives us more leeway there.
We try to do all of vaccinations on 1 day, so we know how many people are coming in, and we are not going to waste too many doses.
Our Department of Public Health in Georgia has said: “We want these vaccines in the arms of kids, and if you have to waste some doses, don’t worry about it.” But it’s a 10-dose vial. It’s going to be hard for me to open it up for one child. I just don’t like wasting anything like this.
Our main goal is to get this vaccine in to the arms of children whose parents want it.
Q: What are some additional sources of information for pediatricians?
Dr. Zerr: There are a lot of great resources on vaccine hesitancy from reputable sources, including these from the CDC and from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine:
- Building Confidence With OVID-19 Vaccines
- How to Talk With Parents About COVID-19 Vaccination
- Strategies for Building Confidence in the COVID-19 Vaccines
- Communication Strategies for Building Confidence in COVID-19 Vaccines: Addressing Variants and Childhood Vaccinations
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Time to attack hypoactivity in our children
My 50th medical school reunion has come and gone. This milestone offered me another opportunity to look back over the last 5 decades of pediatrics that I have watched pass under the bridge. Triggered by the discovery of two recently published studies, this particular view back over my shoulder induced a wave of sadness, anger, and frustration that I have had trouble shaking.
The first study demonstrated a strong positive effect of exercise on academic achievement, the other found that children who were more physically active have weathered the pandemic with fewer mental health problems.
These studies are just two pieces of a growing body of evidence that our sedentary lifestyles are shortening our lives and launching our children into adulthood burdened with a raft of health risks they could possibly have avoided by being more physically active. Encountering these two papers just as the alumni office was inviting me to engage in an orgy of retrospection and introspection made me consider how little I and others in my profession have done to substantially address this scourge on our young people.
Yes, I have tried to encourage my patients to be less sedentary and more active. Yes, I have tried to set a very visible example by bicycling and walking around town. Yes, I have coached youth sports teams. All of my children and grandchildren are leading active lives and appear to be reaping the benefits. But in the grander scheme of things I feel that neither I nor the American Academy of Pediatrics has made a difference.
In March of 2020 the AAP published a clinical report that lists the numerous positive associations between activity and health that includes a comprehensive collection of suggestions for providers on how we might assess the problem of inactivity and then play a role in addressing it with our patients and our communities. Unfortunately, the message’s importance was lost in the glut of pandemic news.
While the AAP’s report should have been published many decades ago, I doubt the delay lessened its impact significantly because the report is primarily a compendium of recommendations that in the long run will be seen as just another example of us believers preaching to the choir.
Making lifestyle changes on the order of magnitude necessary to convert an increasingly sedentary population into one that unconsciously becomes physically active requires more than recommendations. It is only natural that folks have trouble saying “No.”
No to the entertainment of electronic devices. No to the comforts of all-weather enclosed transportation. No to hours on the couch. Overcoming the inertia built into our society is going to require more than encouragement, recommendations, and professional sports–sponsored presidential initiatives.
Mandate has become a politically charged dirty word. But our current experience with the COVID-19 vaccines should help us realize that there is a significant segment of the population that doesn’t like being told what to do even if the outcome is in their best interest. Education and rewards have fallen short, but the evidence is mounting that mandates can work.
There was a time when physical activity was built into every child’s school day. For a variety of bad reasons, vigorous physical education classes and once- or twice-daily outdoor recesses have disappeared from the educational landscape. It is time to return to them in a robust form. Unfortunately, because activity isn’t happening at home it will take a government mandate.
There will be pushback. Even from some educators whose observations should have shown them the critical role of physical activity in health and academic success. We must move the distraction of the phenomenon once known simply as hyperactivity to the back burner and tackle the real epidemic of hypoactivity that is destroying our children.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
My 50th medical school reunion has come and gone. This milestone offered me another opportunity to look back over the last 5 decades of pediatrics that I have watched pass under the bridge. Triggered by the discovery of two recently published studies, this particular view back over my shoulder induced a wave of sadness, anger, and frustration that I have had trouble shaking.
The first study demonstrated a strong positive effect of exercise on academic achievement, the other found that children who were more physically active have weathered the pandemic with fewer mental health problems.
These studies are just two pieces of a growing body of evidence that our sedentary lifestyles are shortening our lives and launching our children into adulthood burdened with a raft of health risks they could possibly have avoided by being more physically active. Encountering these two papers just as the alumni office was inviting me to engage in an orgy of retrospection and introspection made me consider how little I and others in my profession have done to substantially address this scourge on our young people.
Yes, I have tried to encourage my patients to be less sedentary and more active. Yes, I have tried to set a very visible example by bicycling and walking around town. Yes, I have coached youth sports teams. All of my children and grandchildren are leading active lives and appear to be reaping the benefits. But in the grander scheme of things I feel that neither I nor the American Academy of Pediatrics has made a difference.
In March of 2020 the AAP published a clinical report that lists the numerous positive associations between activity and health that includes a comprehensive collection of suggestions for providers on how we might assess the problem of inactivity and then play a role in addressing it with our patients and our communities. Unfortunately, the message’s importance was lost in the glut of pandemic news.
While the AAP’s report should have been published many decades ago, I doubt the delay lessened its impact significantly because the report is primarily a compendium of recommendations that in the long run will be seen as just another example of us believers preaching to the choir.
Making lifestyle changes on the order of magnitude necessary to convert an increasingly sedentary population into one that unconsciously becomes physically active requires more than recommendations. It is only natural that folks have trouble saying “No.”
No to the entertainment of electronic devices. No to the comforts of all-weather enclosed transportation. No to hours on the couch. Overcoming the inertia built into our society is going to require more than encouragement, recommendations, and professional sports–sponsored presidential initiatives.
Mandate has become a politically charged dirty word. But our current experience with the COVID-19 vaccines should help us realize that there is a significant segment of the population that doesn’t like being told what to do even if the outcome is in their best interest. Education and rewards have fallen short, but the evidence is mounting that mandates can work.
There was a time when physical activity was built into every child’s school day. For a variety of bad reasons, vigorous physical education classes and once- or twice-daily outdoor recesses have disappeared from the educational landscape. It is time to return to them in a robust form. Unfortunately, because activity isn’t happening at home it will take a government mandate.
There will be pushback. Even from some educators whose observations should have shown them the critical role of physical activity in health and academic success. We must move the distraction of the phenomenon once known simply as hyperactivity to the back burner and tackle the real epidemic of hypoactivity that is destroying our children.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
My 50th medical school reunion has come and gone. This milestone offered me another opportunity to look back over the last 5 decades of pediatrics that I have watched pass under the bridge. Triggered by the discovery of two recently published studies, this particular view back over my shoulder induced a wave of sadness, anger, and frustration that I have had trouble shaking.
The first study demonstrated a strong positive effect of exercise on academic achievement, the other found that children who were more physically active have weathered the pandemic with fewer mental health problems.
These studies are just two pieces of a growing body of evidence that our sedentary lifestyles are shortening our lives and launching our children into adulthood burdened with a raft of health risks they could possibly have avoided by being more physically active. Encountering these two papers just as the alumni office was inviting me to engage in an orgy of retrospection and introspection made me consider how little I and others in my profession have done to substantially address this scourge on our young people.
Yes, I have tried to encourage my patients to be less sedentary and more active. Yes, I have tried to set a very visible example by bicycling and walking around town. Yes, I have coached youth sports teams. All of my children and grandchildren are leading active lives and appear to be reaping the benefits. But in the grander scheme of things I feel that neither I nor the American Academy of Pediatrics has made a difference.
In March of 2020 the AAP published a clinical report that lists the numerous positive associations between activity and health that includes a comprehensive collection of suggestions for providers on how we might assess the problem of inactivity and then play a role in addressing it with our patients and our communities. Unfortunately, the message’s importance was lost in the glut of pandemic news.
While the AAP’s report should have been published many decades ago, I doubt the delay lessened its impact significantly because the report is primarily a compendium of recommendations that in the long run will be seen as just another example of us believers preaching to the choir.
Making lifestyle changes on the order of magnitude necessary to convert an increasingly sedentary population into one that unconsciously becomes physically active requires more than recommendations. It is only natural that folks have trouble saying “No.”
No to the entertainment of electronic devices. No to the comforts of all-weather enclosed transportation. No to hours on the couch. Overcoming the inertia built into our society is going to require more than encouragement, recommendations, and professional sports–sponsored presidential initiatives.
Mandate has become a politically charged dirty word. But our current experience with the COVID-19 vaccines should help us realize that there is a significant segment of the population that doesn’t like being told what to do even if the outcome is in their best interest. Education and rewards have fallen short, but the evidence is mounting that mandates can work.
There was a time when physical activity was built into every child’s school day. For a variety of bad reasons, vigorous physical education classes and once- or twice-daily outdoor recesses have disappeared from the educational landscape. It is time to return to them in a robust form. Unfortunately, because activity isn’t happening at home it will take a government mandate.
There will be pushback. Even from some educators whose observations should have shown them the critical role of physical activity in health and academic success. We must move the distraction of the phenomenon once known simply as hyperactivity to the back burner and tackle the real epidemic of hypoactivity that is destroying our children.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
A box of memories
My office’s storage room has an old bankers box, which has been there since I moved 8 years ago. Before that it was at my other office, behind an old desk. I had no idea what was in it, I always assumed office supplies, surplus drug company pens and sticky notes, who-knows-whats.
Last week I had one of those days where everyone cancels, so I decided to investigate the box.
It was packed with 10 years worth (2000-2010) of my secretary’s MRI scheduling sheets that had somehow escaped occasional shredding purges. So I sat down next to the office shredder to get rid of them.
As I fed the sheets in, the names jumped out at me. Some I have absolutely no recollection of. Others I still see today.
There were names of the long-deceased, bringing them back to me for the first time in years. There were others that I have no idea what happened to – they must have just stopped seeing me at some point, though for the life of me I can’t remember when, or why. Yet, in my mind, there they were, as if I’d just seen them yesterday. A few times I got curious enough to turn back to my computer and look up their charts, trying to remember their stories.
Then there were those I still remember clearly, every single detail of, in spite of the elapsed time. Something about their case or personality had indelibly etched them in my memory. A valuable lesson learned from them that had something or nothing to do with medicine that’s still with me.
Looking back, I’d guess I’ve seen roughly 15,000-20,000 patients over my career. Not nearly as many as my colleagues in general practice, but still quite a few. A decent sized basketball arena full.
The majority don’t stick with you. That’s the way it is in life.
The ones we didn’t know long – but who are still clearly remembered – are also valuable. In their own way, perhaps unknowingly, they made an impact that hopefully makes us better.
For that I’ll always be grateful to them.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
My office’s storage room has an old bankers box, which has been there since I moved 8 years ago. Before that it was at my other office, behind an old desk. I had no idea what was in it, I always assumed office supplies, surplus drug company pens and sticky notes, who-knows-whats.
Last week I had one of those days where everyone cancels, so I decided to investigate the box.
It was packed with 10 years worth (2000-2010) of my secretary’s MRI scheduling sheets that had somehow escaped occasional shredding purges. So I sat down next to the office shredder to get rid of them.
As I fed the sheets in, the names jumped out at me. Some I have absolutely no recollection of. Others I still see today.
There were names of the long-deceased, bringing them back to me for the first time in years. There were others that I have no idea what happened to – they must have just stopped seeing me at some point, though for the life of me I can’t remember when, or why. Yet, in my mind, there they were, as if I’d just seen them yesterday. A few times I got curious enough to turn back to my computer and look up their charts, trying to remember their stories.
Then there were those I still remember clearly, every single detail of, in spite of the elapsed time. Something about their case or personality had indelibly etched them in my memory. A valuable lesson learned from them that had something or nothing to do with medicine that’s still with me.
Looking back, I’d guess I’ve seen roughly 15,000-20,000 patients over my career. Not nearly as many as my colleagues in general practice, but still quite a few. A decent sized basketball arena full.
The majority don’t stick with you. That’s the way it is in life.
The ones we didn’t know long – but who are still clearly remembered – are also valuable. In their own way, perhaps unknowingly, they made an impact that hopefully makes us better.
For that I’ll always be grateful to them.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
My office’s storage room has an old bankers box, which has been there since I moved 8 years ago. Before that it was at my other office, behind an old desk. I had no idea what was in it, I always assumed office supplies, surplus drug company pens and sticky notes, who-knows-whats.
Last week I had one of those days where everyone cancels, so I decided to investigate the box.
It was packed with 10 years worth (2000-2010) of my secretary’s MRI scheduling sheets that had somehow escaped occasional shredding purges. So I sat down next to the office shredder to get rid of them.
As I fed the sheets in, the names jumped out at me. Some I have absolutely no recollection of. Others I still see today.
There were names of the long-deceased, bringing them back to me for the first time in years. There were others that I have no idea what happened to – they must have just stopped seeing me at some point, though for the life of me I can’t remember when, or why. Yet, in my mind, there they were, as if I’d just seen them yesterday. A few times I got curious enough to turn back to my computer and look up their charts, trying to remember their stories.
Then there were those I still remember clearly, every single detail of, in spite of the elapsed time. Something about their case or personality had indelibly etched them in my memory. A valuable lesson learned from them that had something or nothing to do with medicine that’s still with me.
Looking back, I’d guess I’ve seen roughly 15,000-20,000 patients over my career. Not nearly as many as my colleagues in general practice, but still quite a few. A decent sized basketball arena full.
The majority don’t stick with you. That’s the way it is in life.
The ones we didn’t know long – but who are still clearly remembered – are also valuable. In their own way, perhaps unknowingly, they made an impact that hopefully makes us better.
For that I’ll always be grateful to them.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Giving thanks
Thanksgiving has long been my favorite holiday: a chance to reconnect with family and friends as well as time for reflection, gratitude, and hope. While Thanksgiving 2020 (sadly) was spent eating takeout turkey on the couch due to the pandemic, I am hopeful that Thanksgiving 2021 will for most of us bring a return to the holiday traditions that sustain us.
In this month’s issue of GIHN, we highlight several important studies impacting frontline clinical practice. Relevant to patients with liver disease, we highlight work evaluating the potential supra-additive effects of alcohol intake and obesity in impacting cirrhosis incidence and assessing the comparative performance of non-invasive screening tests in detecting NASH-related fibrosis. Another study of note, relevant to clinical management of GERD, suggests that combinations of abnormal pH-impedance monitoring metrics may predict PPI nonresponders better than individual metrics and could be used to identify patients more likely to respond to invasive GERD management.
We also wish to acknowledge in this issue the outstanding work that AGA and its fellow societies do on behalf of the gastroenterology community in developing and harmonizing ACGME Reporting Milestones for GI and Transplant Hepatology fellowship programs to assist with trainee assessment. Our fellowship trainees represent the future of our profession, and it is of critical importance that we train competent, compassionate professionals who will provide outstanding clinical care to our patients. Kudos to the team, including Dr. Brijen Shah, GI & Hepatology News associate editor Dr. Janice Jou, and others, for their hard work on Milestones 2.0!
Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor in Chief
Thanksgiving has long been my favorite holiday: a chance to reconnect with family and friends as well as time for reflection, gratitude, and hope. While Thanksgiving 2020 (sadly) was spent eating takeout turkey on the couch due to the pandemic, I am hopeful that Thanksgiving 2021 will for most of us bring a return to the holiday traditions that sustain us.
In this month’s issue of GIHN, we highlight several important studies impacting frontline clinical practice. Relevant to patients with liver disease, we highlight work evaluating the potential supra-additive effects of alcohol intake and obesity in impacting cirrhosis incidence and assessing the comparative performance of non-invasive screening tests in detecting NASH-related fibrosis. Another study of note, relevant to clinical management of GERD, suggests that combinations of abnormal pH-impedance monitoring metrics may predict PPI nonresponders better than individual metrics and could be used to identify patients more likely to respond to invasive GERD management.
We also wish to acknowledge in this issue the outstanding work that AGA and its fellow societies do on behalf of the gastroenterology community in developing and harmonizing ACGME Reporting Milestones for GI and Transplant Hepatology fellowship programs to assist with trainee assessment. Our fellowship trainees represent the future of our profession, and it is of critical importance that we train competent, compassionate professionals who will provide outstanding clinical care to our patients. Kudos to the team, including Dr. Brijen Shah, GI & Hepatology News associate editor Dr. Janice Jou, and others, for their hard work on Milestones 2.0!
Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor in Chief
Thanksgiving has long been my favorite holiday: a chance to reconnect with family and friends as well as time for reflection, gratitude, and hope. While Thanksgiving 2020 (sadly) was spent eating takeout turkey on the couch due to the pandemic, I am hopeful that Thanksgiving 2021 will for most of us bring a return to the holiday traditions that sustain us.
In this month’s issue of GIHN, we highlight several important studies impacting frontline clinical practice. Relevant to patients with liver disease, we highlight work evaluating the potential supra-additive effects of alcohol intake and obesity in impacting cirrhosis incidence and assessing the comparative performance of non-invasive screening tests in detecting NASH-related fibrosis. Another study of note, relevant to clinical management of GERD, suggests that combinations of abnormal pH-impedance monitoring metrics may predict PPI nonresponders better than individual metrics and could be used to identify patients more likely to respond to invasive GERD management.
We also wish to acknowledge in this issue the outstanding work that AGA and its fellow societies do on behalf of the gastroenterology community in developing and harmonizing ACGME Reporting Milestones for GI and Transplant Hepatology fellowship programs to assist with trainee assessment. Our fellowship trainees represent the future of our profession, and it is of critical importance that we train competent, compassionate professionals who will provide outstanding clinical care to our patients. Kudos to the team, including Dr. Brijen Shah, GI & Hepatology News associate editor Dr. Janice Jou, and others, for their hard work on Milestones 2.0!
Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor in Chief
Evaluating phantom hCG and low-level hCG elevations in the nonpregnant patient
A human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) test is commonly ordered by gynecologists prior to surgical procedures, in the workup of bleeding abnormalities, and in the follow-up of ectopic and molar pregnancies, to name a few indications. In doing so, occasionally clinicians will find themselves in the diagnostic dilemma of discovering an inexplicable low-level elevation in hCG, such as in a postmenopausal patient. This clinical picture can be confusing and can be concerning for conditions such as postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). However, there can be benign causes of this phenomenon.1 To prevent unnecessary worry, investigation of treatments is important. In fact, misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment of benign, low-level hCG levels with unnecessary chemotherapy is problematic mismanagement of gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD), and a major cause of litigation.
Human chorionic gonadotropin is a glycoprotein hormone with two subunits (alpha and beta). It can come from multiple sources, including trophoblastic cells, malignant trophoblastic cells, the pituitary gland, and exogenous sources.1 Its alpha-subunit is identical to that of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). Its beta-subunit is unique, though very similar to that of LH. The free hCG beta subunit can be produced by nontrophoblastic neoplasms. The gene for the beta subunit of hCG is in close proximity to the beta subunit of LH and increases in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) in menopause can result in the stimulation of both genes. Understanding the sources of hCG-like glycoproteins and mechanisms for testing is important when considering possible causes for falsely elevated hCG.
Most commercially available serum hCG assays detect normal intact hCG and free beta subunits. They are typically sandwich assays utilizing antibody binding sites in which a solid-phase anti-hCG antibody to a specific hCG target is then mixed with the patient’s serum, trapping or binding the hCG, which is then treated with an indicator antibody. After being washed with the indicator or “capture” antibody, its relative (quantitative) levels can be measured.1
Urine hCG testing (such as urine pregnancy tests) work through capillary action, drawing the patient’s urine across absorbent pads before reaching a pad which contains anti-hCG antibodies (the detection zone) in the test line. These tests are less sensitive than serum tests, but many can detect hCG levels <15-20 mIU/mL.1
When ob.gyns. are asked to consult on or evaluate persistently low-level elevations of hCG in nonpregnant patients they should consider both malignant and nonmalignant etiologies. Malignant causes include GTN or quiescent GTD (e.g., after treatment of a molar pregnancy or GTN), choriocarcinoma (e.g., ovarian germ cell tumors), and nonchoriocarcinoma malignancies (such as cervical, pancreatic, breast, renal). Nonmalignant causes of hCG elevations in nonpregnant patients include pituitary hCG (in postmenopausal patients), exogenous hCG, and phantom hCG.
The first step in diagnostic workup is to perform a urine pregnancy test. Provided that the serum hCG level is > 20 mIU/mL, the urine HCG should be positive unless the cause of elevated levels is “phantom hCG” from heterophilic antibodies. When patients are exposed to animal antigens (such as in vaccines) they can develop antibodies such as human anti-mouse antibody. These antibodies have affinity to the binding antibodies used in many hCG sandwich assays and form a linkage between the solid phase antibody and the detection antibody creating a false-positive result. This false-positive test is only present in serum testing but not urine tests because the patient’s heterophilic antibodies are not excreted by the kidney and thus not available to create a false-positive result. An alternative method to make the diagnosis of phantom hCG is to request that the hCG testing be run at a different lab with a different assay (which may not react with the same affinity to the patient’s anti-animal heterophile antibodies), or to request that the lab perform serial dilutions. If phantom hCG from heterophile antibodies is at play, serial dilutions will result in a nonlinear dilution response.
If the patient’s urine hCG test is positive, then pregnancy should be ruled out with a transvaginal ultrasound. If negative, an ectopic pregnancy should still be considered (unless not medically plausible, such as in postmenopausal women or women who have undergone hysterectomy). In the absence of an intrauterine or ectopic pregnancy, a positive serum and urine pregnancy test could be from exogenous hCG, from malignancy or pituitary hCG. Use of exogenous hCG can be ruled out by taking a thorough history, with particular focus on asking about weight loss medications and muscle building therapies.
If pregnancy and exogenous hCG are ruled out, clinicians should assess for an occult hCG-secreting malignancy. The lab should be asked to measure the proportion of the free beta subunit of hCG, as this is typically what is secreted by malignancies. CT imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis to search for an occult primary tumor should take place. If the patient has been recently treated for molar pregnancy or GTN, and serum hCG levels reside between 100 and 300 mIU/mL, quiescent GTD should be considered the diagnosis. Determination of the proportion of hyperglycosylated hCG to total hCG can help differentiate active choriocarcinoma from quiescent GTD. After restaging imaging has been done to confirm no measurable metastatic foci, observation can follow with monthly hCG measurements. The majority of these cases will eventually resolve without intervention within a year. Quiescent GTD and persistent low-level HCG in the absence of measurable GTN on imaging or symptoms does not require treatment with chemotherapy or hysterectomy, particularly in women who desire future fertility.2
Once occult malignancy has been ruled out, the remaining potential source of hCG is the pituitary gland. As mentioned earlier, hCG shares its morphology with TSH, LH, and FSH. This can result in cross reactivity and false positives. In the menopausal state, GnRH levels increase and thus so do pituitary LH and hCG levels. To confirm that the pituitary is the source of the low-level hCG levels, the provider should prescribe a course of hormonal treatment such as an oral contraceptive pill for a 2- to 3-month period. This should result in suppression of pituitary hCG, and serum hCG levels, as part of a negative feedback loop. Pituitary source of hCG is a benign condition, and, like quiescent GTD, phantom hCG or exogenous hCG does not require intervention.
Getting to the bottom of persistent low-level hCG elevations can be challenging. By following the step-wise algorithm listed here, clinicians can sequentially test for urine hCG, heterophilic antibodies, elevated free beta-subunit, occult malignancy, and pituitary hCG.
Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest. Email her at [email protected].
References
1. Oyatogun O et al. Ther Adv Reprod Health 2021 Jun 13. doi: 10.1177/2F26334941211016412.
2. Soper JT. Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb 1;137(2):355-70.
A human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) test is commonly ordered by gynecologists prior to surgical procedures, in the workup of bleeding abnormalities, and in the follow-up of ectopic and molar pregnancies, to name a few indications. In doing so, occasionally clinicians will find themselves in the diagnostic dilemma of discovering an inexplicable low-level elevation in hCG, such as in a postmenopausal patient. This clinical picture can be confusing and can be concerning for conditions such as postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). However, there can be benign causes of this phenomenon.1 To prevent unnecessary worry, investigation of treatments is important. In fact, misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment of benign, low-level hCG levels with unnecessary chemotherapy is problematic mismanagement of gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD), and a major cause of litigation.
Human chorionic gonadotropin is a glycoprotein hormone with two subunits (alpha and beta). It can come from multiple sources, including trophoblastic cells, malignant trophoblastic cells, the pituitary gland, and exogenous sources.1 Its alpha-subunit is identical to that of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). Its beta-subunit is unique, though very similar to that of LH. The free hCG beta subunit can be produced by nontrophoblastic neoplasms. The gene for the beta subunit of hCG is in close proximity to the beta subunit of LH and increases in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) in menopause can result in the stimulation of both genes. Understanding the sources of hCG-like glycoproteins and mechanisms for testing is important when considering possible causes for falsely elevated hCG.
Most commercially available serum hCG assays detect normal intact hCG and free beta subunits. They are typically sandwich assays utilizing antibody binding sites in which a solid-phase anti-hCG antibody to a specific hCG target is then mixed with the patient’s serum, trapping or binding the hCG, which is then treated with an indicator antibody. After being washed with the indicator or “capture” antibody, its relative (quantitative) levels can be measured.1
Urine hCG testing (such as urine pregnancy tests) work through capillary action, drawing the patient’s urine across absorbent pads before reaching a pad which contains anti-hCG antibodies (the detection zone) in the test line. These tests are less sensitive than serum tests, but many can detect hCG levels <15-20 mIU/mL.1
When ob.gyns. are asked to consult on or evaluate persistently low-level elevations of hCG in nonpregnant patients they should consider both malignant and nonmalignant etiologies. Malignant causes include GTN or quiescent GTD (e.g., after treatment of a molar pregnancy or GTN), choriocarcinoma (e.g., ovarian germ cell tumors), and nonchoriocarcinoma malignancies (such as cervical, pancreatic, breast, renal). Nonmalignant causes of hCG elevations in nonpregnant patients include pituitary hCG (in postmenopausal patients), exogenous hCG, and phantom hCG.
The first step in diagnostic workup is to perform a urine pregnancy test. Provided that the serum hCG level is > 20 mIU/mL, the urine HCG should be positive unless the cause of elevated levels is “phantom hCG” from heterophilic antibodies. When patients are exposed to animal antigens (such as in vaccines) they can develop antibodies such as human anti-mouse antibody. These antibodies have affinity to the binding antibodies used in many hCG sandwich assays and form a linkage between the solid phase antibody and the detection antibody creating a false-positive result. This false-positive test is only present in serum testing but not urine tests because the patient’s heterophilic antibodies are not excreted by the kidney and thus not available to create a false-positive result. An alternative method to make the diagnosis of phantom hCG is to request that the hCG testing be run at a different lab with a different assay (which may not react with the same affinity to the patient’s anti-animal heterophile antibodies), or to request that the lab perform serial dilutions. If phantom hCG from heterophile antibodies is at play, serial dilutions will result in a nonlinear dilution response.
If the patient’s urine hCG test is positive, then pregnancy should be ruled out with a transvaginal ultrasound. If negative, an ectopic pregnancy should still be considered (unless not medically plausible, such as in postmenopausal women or women who have undergone hysterectomy). In the absence of an intrauterine or ectopic pregnancy, a positive serum and urine pregnancy test could be from exogenous hCG, from malignancy or pituitary hCG. Use of exogenous hCG can be ruled out by taking a thorough history, with particular focus on asking about weight loss medications and muscle building therapies.
If pregnancy and exogenous hCG are ruled out, clinicians should assess for an occult hCG-secreting malignancy. The lab should be asked to measure the proportion of the free beta subunit of hCG, as this is typically what is secreted by malignancies. CT imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis to search for an occult primary tumor should take place. If the patient has been recently treated for molar pregnancy or GTN, and serum hCG levels reside between 100 and 300 mIU/mL, quiescent GTD should be considered the diagnosis. Determination of the proportion of hyperglycosylated hCG to total hCG can help differentiate active choriocarcinoma from quiescent GTD. After restaging imaging has been done to confirm no measurable metastatic foci, observation can follow with monthly hCG measurements. The majority of these cases will eventually resolve without intervention within a year. Quiescent GTD and persistent low-level HCG in the absence of measurable GTN on imaging or symptoms does not require treatment with chemotherapy or hysterectomy, particularly in women who desire future fertility.2
Once occult malignancy has been ruled out, the remaining potential source of hCG is the pituitary gland. As mentioned earlier, hCG shares its morphology with TSH, LH, and FSH. This can result in cross reactivity and false positives. In the menopausal state, GnRH levels increase and thus so do pituitary LH and hCG levels. To confirm that the pituitary is the source of the low-level hCG levels, the provider should prescribe a course of hormonal treatment such as an oral contraceptive pill for a 2- to 3-month period. This should result in suppression of pituitary hCG, and serum hCG levels, as part of a negative feedback loop. Pituitary source of hCG is a benign condition, and, like quiescent GTD, phantom hCG or exogenous hCG does not require intervention.
Getting to the bottom of persistent low-level hCG elevations can be challenging. By following the step-wise algorithm listed here, clinicians can sequentially test for urine hCG, heterophilic antibodies, elevated free beta-subunit, occult malignancy, and pituitary hCG.
Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest. Email her at [email protected].
References
1. Oyatogun O et al. Ther Adv Reprod Health 2021 Jun 13. doi: 10.1177/2F26334941211016412.
2. Soper JT. Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb 1;137(2):355-70.
A human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) test is commonly ordered by gynecologists prior to surgical procedures, in the workup of bleeding abnormalities, and in the follow-up of ectopic and molar pregnancies, to name a few indications. In doing so, occasionally clinicians will find themselves in the diagnostic dilemma of discovering an inexplicable low-level elevation in hCG, such as in a postmenopausal patient. This clinical picture can be confusing and can be concerning for conditions such as postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). However, there can be benign causes of this phenomenon.1 To prevent unnecessary worry, investigation of treatments is important. In fact, misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment of benign, low-level hCG levels with unnecessary chemotherapy is problematic mismanagement of gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD), and a major cause of litigation.
Human chorionic gonadotropin is a glycoprotein hormone with two subunits (alpha and beta). It can come from multiple sources, including trophoblastic cells, malignant trophoblastic cells, the pituitary gland, and exogenous sources.1 Its alpha-subunit is identical to that of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). Its beta-subunit is unique, though very similar to that of LH. The free hCG beta subunit can be produced by nontrophoblastic neoplasms. The gene for the beta subunit of hCG is in close proximity to the beta subunit of LH and increases in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) in menopause can result in the stimulation of both genes. Understanding the sources of hCG-like glycoproteins and mechanisms for testing is important when considering possible causes for falsely elevated hCG.
Most commercially available serum hCG assays detect normal intact hCG and free beta subunits. They are typically sandwich assays utilizing antibody binding sites in which a solid-phase anti-hCG antibody to a specific hCG target is then mixed with the patient’s serum, trapping or binding the hCG, which is then treated with an indicator antibody. After being washed with the indicator or “capture” antibody, its relative (quantitative) levels can be measured.1
Urine hCG testing (such as urine pregnancy tests) work through capillary action, drawing the patient’s urine across absorbent pads before reaching a pad which contains anti-hCG antibodies (the detection zone) in the test line. These tests are less sensitive than serum tests, but many can detect hCG levels <15-20 mIU/mL.1
When ob.gyns. are asked to consult on or evaluate persistently low-level elevations of hCG in nonpregnant patients they should consider both malignant and nonmalignant etiologies. Malignant causes include GTN or quiescent GTD (e.g., after treatment of a molar pregnancy or GTN), choriocarcinoma (e.g., ovarian germ cell tumors), and nonchoriocarcinoma malignancies (such as cervical, pancreatic, breast, renal). Nonmalignant causes of hCG elevations in nonpregnant patients include pituitary hCG (in postmenopausal patients), exogenous hCG, and phantom hCG.
The first step in diagnostic workup is to perform a urine pregnancy test. Provided that the serum hCG level is > 20 mIU/mL, the urine HCG should be positive unless the cause of elevated levels is “phantom hCG” from heterophilic antibodies. When patients are exposed to animal antigens (such as in vaccines) they can develop antibodies such as human anti-mouse antibody. These antibodies have affinity to the binding antibodies used in many hCG sandwich assays and form a linkage between the solid phase antibody and the detection antibody creating a false-positive result. This false-positive test is only present in serum testing but not urine tests because the patient’s heterophilic antibodies are not excreted by the kidney and thus not available to create a false-positive result. An alternative method to make the diagnosis of phantom hCG is to request that the hCG testing be run at a different lab with a different assay (which may not react with the same affinity to the patient’s anti-animal heterophile antibodies), or to request that the lab perform serial dilutions. If phantom hCG from heterophile antibodies is at play, serial dilutions will result in a nonlinear dilution response.
If the patient’s urine hCG test is positive, then pregnancy should be ruled out with a transvaginal ultrasound. If negative, an ectopic pregnancy should still be considered (unless not medically plausible, such as in postmenopausal women or women who have undergone hysterectomy). In the absence of an intrauterine or ectopic pregnancy, a positive serum and urine pregnancy test could be from exogenous hCG, from malignancy or pituitary hCG. Use of exogenous hCG can be ruled out by taking a thorough history, with particular focus on asking about weight loss medications and muscle building therapies.
If pregnancy and exogenous hCG are ruled out, clinicians should assess for an occult hCG-secreting malignancy. The lab should be asked to measure the proportion of the free beta subunit of hCG, as this is typically what is secreted by malignancies. CT imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis to search for an occult primary tumor should take place. If the patient has been recently treated for molar pregnancy or GTN, and serum hCG levels reside between 100 and 300 mIU/mL, quiescent GTD should be considered the diagnosis. Determination of the proportion of hyperglycosylated hCG to total hCG can help differentiate active choriocarcinoma from quiescent GTD. After restaging imaging has been done to confirm no measurable metastatic foci, observation can follow with monthly hCG measurements. The majority of these cases will eventually resolve without intervention within a year. Quiescent GTD and persistent low-level HCG in the absence of measurable GTN on imaging or symptoms does not require treatment with chemotherapy or hysterectomy, particularly in women who desire future fertility.2
Once occult malignancy has been ruled out, the remaining potential source of hCG is the pituitary gland. As mentioned earlier, hCG shares its morphology with TSH, LH, and FSH. This can result in cross reactivity and false positives. In the menopausal state, GnRH levels increase and thus so do pituitary LH and hCG levels. To confirm that the pituitary is the source of the low-level hCG levels, the provider should prescribe a course of hormonal treatment such as an oral contraceptive pill for a 2- to 3-month period. This should result in suppression of pituitary hCG, and serum hCG levels, as part of a negative feedback loop. Pituitary source of hCG is a benign condition, and, like quiescent GTD, phantom hCG or exogenous hCG does not require intervention.
Getting to the bottom of persistent low-level hCG elevations can be challenging. By following the step-wise algorithm listed here, clinicians can sequentially test for urine hCG, heterophilic antibodies, elevated free beta-subunit, occult malignancy, and pituitary hCG.
Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest. Email her at [email protected].
References
1. Oyatogun O et al. Ther Adv Reprod Health 2021 Jun 13. doi: 10.1177/2F26334941211016412.
2. Soper JT. Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb 1;137(2):355-70.
Chatbots can improve mental health in vulnerable populations
In this modern age of health care where telemedicine rules, conversational agents (CAs) that use text messaging systems are becoming a major mode of communication.
Many people are familiar with voice-enabled agents, such as Apple’s Siri, Google Now, and Microsoft’s Cortana. However, CAs come in different forms of complexity, ranging from a short message service–based texting platform to an embodied conversational agent (ECA).
ECAs allow participants to interact with a physical or graphical figure that simulates a person in appearance, behavior, and dialect. These are essentially virtual humans, or avatars, who talk with participants. By taking greater advantage of these automated agents, some have projected there may be $11 billion in combined cost savings across a variety of business sectors by 2023.1 The health care field is one sector in which CAs can play an important role. Because of their accessibility, CAs have the potential to improve mental health by combating health care inequities and stigma, encouraging disclosure from participants, and serving as companions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
CAs provide accessible health care for rural, low socioeconomic status (SES), and minority communities in a variety of advantageous ways. For example, one study found that long-term use of a text-based agent that combines motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can support smoking cessation in adolescents of low SES.2
CAs can help vulnerable participants advocate for themselves and proactively maintain their mental health through access to health care resources. In specific cases, these agents equalize health care treatment for different populations. Even though some participants live in secluded areas or are blocked by barriers, these text-based agents can still provide self-help intervention for them at any time on an individual basis, regardless of their location or socioeconomic status. Furthermore, they serve as highly cost-effective mental health promotion tools for large populations, some of which might not otherwise be reached by mental health care.
In combating mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, studies have found that CAs are great treatment tools. For example, participants in an experimental group who received a self-help program based on CBT from a text-based CA named Woebot experienced significantly reduced depression symptoms when compared to the control group of participants, who received only information from a self-help electronic book.3 As a result, CAs might prove successful in treating younger populations who find online tools more feasible and accessible. Often, this population self-identifies depressive and anxiety symptoms without consulting a health care professional. Thus, this tool would prove useful to those who are bothered by the stigma of seeing a mental health professional.
Virtual human–based CAs also encourage participants to disclose more information in a nonjudgmental manner, especially among people with diseases with stigma. CAs use neutral languages, which may be helpful when dealing with stigmatized issues such as HIV, family planning, and abortion care because this heightens confidentiality and privacy. When participants believe that the agent does not “judge” or evaluate their capabilities, this elicits more sensitive information from them. For example, one study found that military service members who believed that they were interacting with a computer rather than a human operator reported lower fear of self-disclosure, displayed more sadness, and were rated by observers as more willing to disclose posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.4 Additional findings show that participants prefer CAs when topics are highly sensitive and more likely to evoke negative self-admissions.
In what we hope will soon be a post–COVID-19 landscape of medicine, CAs are fast being used on the front lines of health care technology. Empathetic CAs can combat adverse effects of social exclusion during these pressing times. Etsuko Ishii, a researcher affiliated with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associates demonstrated that a virtual CA was as effective as a COVID-19 companion because it uses natural language processing (NLP) and nonverbal facial expressions to give users the feeling that they are being treated with empathy.5 While minimizing the number of in-person interactions that could potentially spread COVID-19, these agents promote virtual companionship that mirrors natural conversations and provide emotional support with psychological safety as participants express their pent-up thoughts. Not only do these agents help recover mood quickly, but they also have the power to overcome geographic barriers, be constantly available, and alleviate the high demand for mental health care. As a result, CAs have the potential to facilitate better communication and sustain social interactions within the isolated environment the pandemic has created.
CAs can predict, detect, and determine treatment solutions for mental health conditions based on behavioral insights. These agents’ natural language processing also allows them to be powerful therapeutic agents that can serve different communities, particularly for populations with limited access to medical resources. As the use of CAs becomes more integrated into telemedicine, their utility will continue to grow as their proven versatility in many situations expands the boundaries of health care technology.
Ms. Wong, a medical student at New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, conducts research related to mental health care services. She disclosed writing a telemental health software platform called Orchid. Dr. Vo, a board-certified psychiatrist, is the medical director of telehealth for the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She is a faculty member of the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia. Dr. Vo conducts digital health research focused on using automation and artificial intelligence for suicide risk screening and connecting patients to mental health care services. She disclosed serving as cofounder of Orchid.
References
1. Chatbots: Vendor opportunities & market forecasts 2020-2024. Juniper Research, 2020.
2. Simon P et al. On using chatbots to promote smoking cessation among adolescents of low socioeconomic status, Artificial Intelligence and Work: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) 2019 Fall Symposium, 2019.
3. Fitzpatrick KK et al. JMIR Mental Health. 2017;4(2):e19.
4. Lucas GM et al. Front Robot AI. 2017 Oct 12. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2017.00051.
5. Ishii E et al. ERICA: An empathetic android companion for COVID-19 quarantine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02325.
In this modern age of health care where telemedicine rules, conversational agents (CAs) that use text messaging systems are becoming a major mode of communication.
Many people are familiar with voice-enabled agents, such as Apple’s Siri, Google Now, and Microsoft’s Cortana. However, CAs come in different forms of complexity, ranging from a short message service–based texting platform to an embodied conversational agent (ECA).
ECAs allow participants to interact with a physical or graphical figure that simulates a person in appearance, behavior, and dialect. These are essentially virtual humans, or avatars, who talk with participants. By taking greater advantage of these automated agents, some have projected there may be $11 billion in combined cost savings across a variety of business sectors by 2023.1 The health care field is one sector in which CAs can play an important role. Because of their accessibility, CAs have the potential to improve mental health by combating health care inequities and stigma, encouraging disclosure from participants, and serving as companions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
CAs provide accessible health care for rural, low socioeconomic status (SES), and minority communities in a variety of advantageous ways. For example, one study found that long-term use of a text-based agent that combines motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can support smoking cessation in adolescents of low SES.2
CAs can help vulnerable participants advocate for themselves and proactively maintain their mental health through access to health care resources. In specific cases, these agents equalize health care treatment for different populations. Even though some participants live in secluded areas or are blocked by barriers, these text-based agents can still provide self-help intervention for them at any time on an individual basis, regardless of their location or socioeconomic status. Furthermore, they serve as highly cost-effective mental health promotion tools for large populations, some of which might not otherwise be reached by mental health care.
In combating mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, studies have found that CAs are great treatment tools. For example, participants in an experimental group who received a self-help program based on CBT from a text-based CA named Woebot experienced significantly reduced depression symptoms when compared to the control group of participants, who received only information from a self-help electronic book.3 As a result, CAs might prove successful in treating younger populations who find online tools more feasible and accessible. Often, this population self-identifies depressive and anxiety symptoms without consulting a health care professional. Thus, this tool would prove useful to those who are bothered by the stigma of seeing a mental health professional.
Virtual human–based CAs also encourage participants to disclose more information in a nonjudgmental manner, especially among people with diseases with stigma. CAs use neutral languages, which may be helpful when dealing with stigmatized issues such as HIV, family planning, and abortion care because this heightens confidentiality and privacy. When participants believe that the agent does not “judge” or evaluate their capabilities, this elicits more sensitive information from them. For example, one study found that military service members who believed that they were interacting with a computer rather than a human operator reported lower fear of self-disclosure, displayed more sadness, and were rated by observers as more willing to disclose posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.4 Additional findings show that participants prefer CAs when topics are highly sensitive and more likely to evoke negative self-admissions.
In what we hope will soon be a post–COVID-19 landscape of medicine, CAs are fast being used on the front lines of health care technology. Empathetic CAs can combat adverse effects of social exclusion during these pressing times. Etsuko Ishii, a researcher affiliated with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associates demonstrated that a virtual CA was as effective as a COVID-19 companion because it uses natural language processing (NLP) and nonverbal facial expressions to give users the feeling that they are being treated with empathy.5 While minimizing the number of in-person interactions that could potentially spread COVID-19, these agents promote virtual companionship that mirrors natural conversations and provide emotional support with psychological safety as participants express their pent-up thoughts. Not only do these agents help recover mood quickly, but they also have the power to overcome geographic barriers, be constantly available, and alleviate the high demand for mental health care. As a result, CAs have the potential to facilitate better communication and sustain social interactions within the isolated environment the pandemic has created.
CAs can predict, detect, and determine treatment solutions for mental health conditions based on behavioral insights. These agents’ natural language processing also allows them to be powerful therapeutic agents that can serve different communities, particularly for populations with limited access to medical resources. As the use of CAs becomes more integrated into telemedicine, their utility will continue to grow as their proven versatility in many situations expands the boundaries of health care technology.
Ms. Wong, a medical student at New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, conducts research related to mental health care services. She disclosed writing a telemental health software platform called Orchid. Dr. Vo, a board-certified psychiatrist, is the medical director of telehealth for the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She is a faculty member of the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia. Dr. Vo conducts digital health research focused on using automation and artificial intelligence for suicide risk screening and connecting patients to mental health care services. She disclosed serving as cofounder of Orchid.
References
1. Chatbots: Vendor opportunities & market forecasts 2020-2024. Juniper Research, 2020.
2. Simon P et al. On using chatbots to promote smoking cessation among adolescents of low socioeconomic status, Artificial Intelligence and Work: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) 2019 Fall Symposium, 2019.
3. Fitzpatrick KK et al. JMIR Mental Health. 2017;4(2):e19.
4. Lucas GM et al. Front Robot AI. 2017 Oct 12. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2017.00051.
5. Ishii E et al. ERICA: An empathetic android companion for COVID-19 quarantine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02325.
In this modern age of health care where telemedicine rules, conversational agents (CAs) that use text messaging systems are becoming a major mode of communication.
Many people are familiar with voice-enabled agents, such as Apple’s Siri, Google Now, and Microsoft’s Cortana. However, CAs come in different forms of complexity, ranging from a short message service–based texting platform to an embodied conversational agent (ECA).
ECAs allow participants to interact with a physical or graphical figure that simulates a person in appearance, behavior, and dialect. These are essentially virtual humans, or avatars, who talk with participants. By taking greater advantage of these automated agents, some have projected there may be $11 billion in combined cost savings across a variety of business sectors by 2023.1 The health care field is one sector in which CAs can play an important role. Because of their accessibility, CAs have the potential to improve mental health by combating health care inequities and stigma, encouraging disclosure from participants, and serving as companions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
CAs provide accessible health care for rural, low socioeconomic status (SES), and minority communities in a variety of advantageous ways. For example, one study found that long-term use of a text-based agent that combines motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can support smoking cessation in adolescents of low SES.2
CAs can help vulnerable participants advocate for themselves and proactively maintain their mental health through access to health care resources. In specific cases, these agents equalize health care treatment for different populations. Even though some participants live in secluded areas or are blocked by barriers, these text-based agents can still provide self-help intervention for them at any time on an individual basis, regardless of their location or socioeconomic status. Furthermore, they serve as highly cost-effective mental health promotion tools for large populations, some of which might not otherwise be reached by mental health care.
In combating mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, studies have found that CAs are great treatment tools. For example, participants in an experimental group who received a self-help program based on CBT from a text-based CA named Woebot experienced significantly reduced depression symptoms when compared to the control group of participants, who received only information from a self-help electronic book.3 As a result, CAs might prove successful in treating younger populations who find online tools more feasible and accessible. Often, this population self-identifies depressive and anxiety symptoms without consulting a health care professional. Thus, this tool would prove useful to those who are bothered by the stigma of seeing a mental health professional.
Virtual human–based CAs also encourage participants to disclose more information in a nonjudgmental manner, especially among people with diseases with stigma. CAs use neutral languages, which may be helpful when dealing with stigmatized issues such as HIV, family planning, and abortion care because this heightens confidentiality and privacy. When participants believe that the agent does not “judge” or evaluate their capabilities, this elicits more sensitive information from them. For example, one study found that military service members who believed that they were interacting with a computer rather than a human operator reported lower fear of self-disclosure, displayed more sadness, and were rated by observers as more willing to disclose posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.4 Additional findings show that participants prefer CAs when topics are highly sensitive and more likely to evoke negative self-admissions.
In what we hope will soon be a post–COVID-19 landscape of medicine, CAs are fast being used on the front lines of health care technology. Empathetic CAs can combat adverse effects of social exclusion during these pressing times. Etsuko Ishii, a researcher affiliated with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associates demonstrated that a virtual CA was as effective as a COVID-19 companion because it uses natural language processing (NLP) and nonverbal facial expressions to give users the feeling that they are being treated with empathy.5 While minimizing the number of in-person interactions that could potentially spread COVID-19, these agents promote virtual companionship that mirrors natural conversations and provide emotional support with psychological safety as participants express their pent-up thoughts. Not only do these agents help recover mood quickly, but they also have the power to overcome geographic barriers, be constantly available, and alleviate the high demand for mental health care. As a result, CAs have the potential to facilitate better communication and sustain social interactions within the isolated environment the pandemic has created.
CAs can predict, detect, and determine treatment solutions for mental health conditions based on behavioral insights. These agents’ natural language processing also allows them to be powerful therapeutic agents that can serve different communities, particularly for populations with limited access to medical resources. As the use of CAs becomes more integrated into telemedicine, their utility will continue to grow as their proven versatility in many situations expands the boundaries of health care technology.
Ms. Wong, a medical student at New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, conducts research related to mental health care services. She disclosed writing a telemental health software platform called Orchid. Dr. Vo, a board-certified psychiatrist, is the medical director of telehealth for the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She is a faculty member of the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia. Dr. Vo conducts digital health research focused on using automation and artificial intelligence for suicide risk screening and connecting patients to mental health care services. She disclosed serving as cofounder of Orchid.
References
1. Chatbots: Vendor opportunities & market forecasts 2020-2024. Juniper Research, 2020.
2. Simon P et al. On using chatbots to promote smoking cessation among adolescents of low socioeconomic status, Artificial Intelligence and Work: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) 2019 Fall Symposium, 2019.
3. Fitzpatrick KK et al. JMIR Mental Health. 2017;4(2):e19.
4. Lucas GM et al. Front Robot AI. 2017 Oct 12. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2017.00051.
5. Ishii E et al. ERICA: An empathetic android companion for COVID-19 quarantine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02325.
The missing puzzle piece
Mrs. Stevens died last week. She was 87.
That’s nothing new. The nature of medicine is such that you’ll see patients pass on.
But Mrs. Stevens bothers me, because even to the end I’m not sure I ever had an answer.
Her case began with somewhat nebulous, but clearly neurological, symptoms. An initial workup was normal, as was the secondary one.
The third stage of increasingly esoteric tests turned up some clues as to what was going wrong, even as she continued to dwindle. I could at least start working on a differential, even if none of it was good.
I met with her and her husband, and they wanted an answer, good or bad.
I pulled some strings at a local tertiary subspecialty center and got her in. They agreed with my suspicions, though also couldn’t find something definitive. They even repeated the tests, and came to the same conclusions – narrowed down to a few things, but no smoking gun.
Throughout all of this Mrs. Stevens kept spiraling down. After a few hospital admissions and even a biopsy of an abdominal mass we thought would give us the answer, we still didn’t solve the puzzle.
At some point she and her husband grew tired of looking and accepted that it wouldn’t change anything. Her internist called hospice in. They kept her comfortable for her last few weeks.
They didn’t want an autopsy, so the secret stayed with her.
Looking back, I agree with their decision to stop the workup. When looking further won’t change anything, why bother?
But, as a doctor, it’s frustrating. There’s a degree of intellectual curiosity that drives us. We want answers. We want to solve puzzles.
And sometimes we never get that final piece. Even if it’s the right decision for the patient, at the end of the day it’s still an unsolved crime to us. A reminder that,
We probably never will.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Mrs. Stevens died last week. She was 87.
That’s nothing new. The nature of medicine is such that you’ll see patients pass on.
But Mrs. Stevens bothers me, because even to the end I’m not sure I ever had an answer.
Her case began with somewhat nebulous, but clearly neurological, symptoms. An initial workup was normal, as was the secondary one.
The third stage of increasingly esoteric tests turned up some clues as to what was going wrong, even as she continued to dwindle. I could at least start working on a differential, even if none of it was good.
I met with her and her husband, and they wanted an answer, good or bad.
I pulled some strings at a local tertiary subspecialty center and got her in. They agreed with my suspicions, though also couldn’t find something definitive. They even repeated the tests, and came to the same conclusions – narrowed down to a few things, but no smoking gun.
Throughout all of this Mrs. Stevens kept spiraling down. After a few hospital admissions and even a biopsy of an abdominal mass we thought would give us the answer, we still didn’t solve the puzzle.
At some point she and her husband grew tired of looking and accepted that it wouldn’t change anything. Her internist called hospice in. They kept her comfortable for her last few weeks.
They didn’t want an autopsy, so the secret stayed with her.
Looking back, I agree with their decision to stop the workup. When looking further won’t change anything, why bother?
But, as a doctor, it’s frustrating. There’s a degree of intellectual curiosity that drives us. We want answers. We want to solve puzzles.
And sometimes we never get that final piece. Even if it’s the right decision for the patient, at the end of the day it’s still an unsolved crime to us. A reminder that,
We probably never will.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Mrs. Stevens died last week. She was 87.
That’s nothing new. The nature of medicine is such that you’ll see patients pass on.
But Mrs. Stevens bothers me, because even to the end I’m not sure I ever had an answer.
Her case began with somewhat nebulous, but clearly neurological, symptoms. An initial workup was normal, as was the secondary one.
The third stage of increasingly esoteric tests turned up some clues as to what was going wrong, even as she continued to dwindle. I could at least start working on a differential, even if none of it was good.
I met with her and her husband, and they wanted an answer, good or bad.
I pulled some strings at a local tertiary subspecialty center and got her in. They agreed with my suspicions, though also couldn’t find something definitive. They even repeated the tests, and came to the same conclusions – narrowed down to a few things, but no smoking gun.
Throughout all of this Mrs. Stevens kept spiraling down. After a few hospital admissions and even a biopsy of an abdominal mass we thought would give us the answer, we still didn’t solve the puzzle.
At some point she and her husband grew tired of looking and accepted that it wouldn’t change anything. Her internist called hospice in. They kept her comfortable for her last few weeks.
They didn’t want an autopsy, so the secret stayed with her.
Looking back, I agree with their decision to stop the workup. When looking further won’t change anything, why bother?
But, as a doctor, it’s frustrating. There’s a degree of intellectual curiosity that drives us. We want answers. We want to solve puzzles.
And sometimes we never get that final piece. Even if it’s the right decision for the patient, at the end of the day it’s still an unsolved crime to us. A reminder that,
We probably never will.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
How 100 years of insulin have changed pregnancy for women with type 1 diabetes
Mark B. Landon, MD: The discovery of insulin in 1921 by Dr. Frederick Banting and Dr. Charles Best and its introduction into clinical practice may well be the most significant achievement in the care of pregnant women with diabetes mellitus in the last century. Why was this advance so monumental?
Steven G. Gabbe, MD: Insulin is the single most important drug we use in taking care of diabetes in pregnancy. It is required not only by all patients with type 1 diabetes, but also by the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes. Moreover, at least a third of our patients with gestational diabetes require more than lifestyle change. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Diabetes Association recommend that insulin be considered as the first-line pharmacologic therapy.
Before insulin, the most prudent option for women who had glucose in their urine early in pregnancy, which was called “true diabetes,” was deemed to be termination of the pregnancy. The chances of surviving a pregnancy, and of having a surviving infant, were low.
Pregnancies were a rarity to begin with because most women of reproductive age died within a year or two of the onset of their illness. Moreover, most women with what we now know as type 1 diabetes were amenorrheic and infertile. In fact, before insulin, there were few cases of pregnancy complicated by diabetes reported in the literature. A summary of the world literature published in 1909 in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences reported: 66 pregnancies in 43 women; 50% maternal mortality (27% immediate; 23% in next 2 years); and a 41% pregnancy loss (Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:295-9, Cited Am J Med Sci. 1909;137:1).
The first injection of insulin was administered in 1922 to a 13-year-old Canadian boy, and for several years the focus was on children. (Some of them had been kept alive with 450 calories/day long enough to benefit from the new treatment.)
For women with what we now know as type 1 diabetes, insulin kept them alive, restored their fertility, and enabled them to survive a pregnancy. Maternal mortality dropped dramatically, down to a few percent, once pregnant women became beneficiaries of insulin therapy.
Perinatal outcomes remained poor, however. In the early years of insulin therapy, more than half of the babies died. Some were stillbirths, which had been the primary cause of perinatal deaths in the pre-insulin era. Others were spontaneous preterm births, and still others were delivered prematurely in order to avert a stillbirth, and subsequently died.
Dr. Landon: A significant improvement in perinatal outcomes was eventually realized about two decades after insulin was introduced. By then Dr. Priscilla White of the Joslin Clinic had recorded that women who had so-called ‘normal hormonal balance’ – basically good glucose control – had very low rates of fetal demise and fetal loss compared with those who did not have good control. You had the opportunity to work alongside Dr. White. How did she achieve these results without all the tools we have today?
Dr. Gabbe: In 1925, the perinatal mortality in pregnancies complicated by type 1 diabetes was about 40%. By 1965 it was 10%, and when I began my residency at the Joslin Clinic and Boston Hospital for Women in 1972 it was closer to 5%
In those days we didn’t have accurate methods for dating pregnancies or assessing fetal size or well-being. We didn’t have tools to monitor blood glucose levels, and our insulins were limited to regular insulins and NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) as a basal insulin.
Dr. White had concluded early on, and wrote in a 1928 paper, that controlling diabetes was essential to fetal welfare and that the “high glucose content of placental blood” was probably linked to excessive fetal growth. She also wrote about the importance of “close and persistent supervision” of the patient by both an internist and obstetrician.
When I began working with her in the 1970s, her program involved antepartum visits every week or two and a team approach. Patients would be seen by Dr. White and other diabetologists, by head obstetrician Dr. Luke Gillespie, and by nurses and nutritionists. At the end of each day, after all the patients had been seen, we’d gather in Dr. White’s office and look at each patient’s single morning blood glucose measurement and the histories we’d obtained, and we’d make adjustments to their insulin regimens.
Dr. White’s solution to the problem of monitoring blood glucose was a program of hospitalization throughout pregnancy. Patients were hospitalized for a week initially to achieve blood glucose control, and then again around 20 weeks of gestation for monitoring and improvement. Hospitalizations later in the pregnancy were timed according to her classification of obstetric diabetes, which had been published in a landmark paper in 1949. In that paper Dr. Priscilla White wrote: “It is evident that age at onset of diabetes, duration, severity, and degree of maternal vascular disease all influence the fetal survival unfavorably”(Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:295-9 / Am J Med. 1949;7:609-16).
The classification system considered age of onset, duration of diabetes, need for insulin, and presence of vascular disease. Women in higher classes and at greater risk for intrauterine death were admitted at 32 weeks, while those at less risk could wait until about 34 weeks. The timing of delivery was somewhat arbitrary, but the goal was to choose a time at which the fetus could survive in the nursery and, as Dr. White had written, “before the dreaded late intrauterine accident could occur.” (In the early ’70s, approximately half of newborns admitted to [newborn intensive care unites] at 32 weeks would survive.)
We did measure estriol levels through 24-hour urine collections as a marker for fetal and placental well-being, but as we subsequently learned, a sharp drop was often too late an indicator that something was wrong.
Dr. Landon: Dr. White and others trying to manage diabetes in pregnancy during the initial decades after insulin’s discovery were indeed significantly handicapped by a lack of tools for assessing glucose control. However, the 1970s then ushered in a “Golden Era” of fetal testing. How did advances in antepartum fetal monitoring complement the use of insulin?
Dr. Gabbe: By the mid-1970s, researchers had recognized that fetal heart rate decelerations in labor signaled fetal hypoxemia, and Dr. Roger Freeman had applied these findings to the antepartum setting, pioneering development of the contraction stress test, or oxytocin stress test. The absence of late decelerations during 10 minutes of contractions meant that the fetus was unlikely to be compromised.
When the test was administered to high-risk patients at Los Angeles County Women’s Hospital, including women with diabetes, a negative result predicted that a baby would not die within the next week. The contraction stress test was a major breakthrough. It was the first biophysical test for fetal compromise and was important for pregnancies complicated by diabetes. However, it had to be done on the labor and delivery floor, it could take hours, and it might not be definitive if one couldn’t produce enough contractions.
In the mid-1970s, the nonstress test, which relied on the presence of fetal heart rate accelerations in response to fetal movement, was found to be as reliable as the contraction stress test. It became another important tool for prolonging gestation in women with type 1 diabetes.
Even more predictive and reliable was the biophysical profile described several years later. It combined the nonstress test with an assessment using real-time fetal ultrasound of fetal movements, fetal tone and breathing movements, and amniotic fluid.
So, in a relatively short period of time, antepartum surveillance progressed from the contraction stress test to the nonstress test to the biophysical profile. These advances, along with advances in neonatal intensive care, all contributed to the continued decline in perinatal mortality.
Dr. Landon: You have taught for many years that the principal benefit of these tests of fetal surveillance is not necessarily the results identifying a fetus at risk, but the reassuring normal results that allow further maturation of the fetus that is not at risk in the pregnancy complicated by type 1 diabetes.
You also taught – as I experienced some 40 years ago when training with you at the University of Pennsylvania – that hospitalization later in pregnancy allowed for valuable optimization of our patients’ insulin regimens prior to their scheduled deliveries. This optimization helped to reduce complications such as neonatal hypoglycemia.
The introduction of the first reflectance meters to the antepartum unit eliminated the need for so many blood draws. Subsequently, came portable self-monitoring blood glucose units, which I’d argue were the second greatest achievement after the introduction of insulin because they eliminated the need for routine antepartum admissions. What are your thoughts?
Dr. Gabbe: The reflectance meters as first developed were in-hospital devices. They needed frequent calibration, and readings took several minutes. Once introduced, however, there was rapid advancement in their accuracy, size, and speed of providing results.
Other important advances were the development of rapid-acting insulins and new basal insulins and, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the development of insulin pumps. At Penn, we studied an early pump that we called the “blue brick” because of its size. Today, of course, smaller and safer pumps paired with continuous glucose monitors are making an enormous difference for our patients with type 1 diabetes, providing them with much better outcomes.
Dr. Landon: A century after the discovery of insulin, congenital malformations remain a problem. We have seen a reduction overall, but recent data here and in Sweden show that the rate of malformations in pregnancy complicated by diabetes still is several-fold greater than in the general population.
The data also support what we’ve known for decades – that the level of glucose control during the periconceptual period is directly correlated with the risk of malformations. Can you speak to our efforts, which have been somewhat, but not completely, successful?
Dr. Gabbe: This is one of our remaining challenges. Malformations are now the leading cause of perinatal mortality in pregnancies involving type 1 and type 2 diabetes. We’ve seen these tragic outcomes over the years. While there were always questions about what caused malformations, our concerns focused on hyperglycemia early in pregnancy as a risk factor.
Knowing now that it is an abnormal intrauterine milieu during the period of organogenesis that leads to the malformations, we have improved by having patients come to us before pregnancy. Studies have shown that we can reduce malformations to a level comparable to the general population, or perhaps a bit higher, through intensive control as a result of prepregnancy care.
The challenge is that many obstetric patients don’t have a planned pregnancy. Our efforts to improve glucose control don’t always go the way we’d like them to. Still, considering where we’ve come from since the introduction of insulin to the modern management of diabetes in pregnancy, our progress has been truly remarkable.
Mark B. Landon, MD: The discovery of insulin in 1921 by Dr. Frederick Banting and Dr. Charles Best and its introduction into clinical practice may well be the most significant achievement in the care of pregnant women with diabetes mellitus in the last century. Why was this advance so monumental?
Steven G. Gabbe, MD: Insulin is the single most important drug we use in taking care of diabetes in pregnancy. It is required not only by all patients with type 1 diabetes, but also by the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes. Moreover, at least a third of our patients with gestational diabetes require more than lifestyle change. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Diabetes Association recommend that insulin be considered as the first-line pharmacologic therapy.
Before insulin, the most prudent option for women who had glucose in their urine early in pregnancy, which was called “true diabetes,” was deemed to be termination of the pregnancy. The chances of surviving a pregnancy, and of having a surviving infant, were low.
Pregnancies were a rarity to begin with because most women of reproductive age died within a year or two of the onset of their illness. Moreover, most women with what we now know as type 1 diabetes were amenorrheic and infertile. In fact, before insulin, there were few cases of pregnancy complicated by diabetes reported in the literature. A summary of the world literature published in 1909 in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences reported: 66 pregnancies in 43 women; 50% maternal mortality (27% immediate; 23% in next 2 years); and a 41% pregnancy loss (Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:295-9, Cited Am J Med Sci. 1909;137:1).
The first injection of insulin was administered in 1922 to a 13-year-old Canadian boy, and for several years the focus was on children. (Some of them had been kept alive with 450 calories/day long enough to benefit from the new treatment.)
For women with what we now know as type 1 diabetes, insulin kept them alive, restored their fertility, and enabled them to survive a pregnancy. Maternal mortality dropped dramatically, down to a few percent, once pregnant women became beneficiaries of insulin therapy.
Perinatal outcomes remained poor, however. In the early years of insulin therapy, more than half of the babies died. Some were stillbirths, which had been the primary cause of perinatal deaths in the pre-insulin era. Others were spontaneous preterm births, and still others were delivered prematurely in order to avert a stillbirth, and subsequently died.
Dr. Landon: A significant improvement in perinatal outcomes was eventually realized about two decades after insulin was introduced. By then Dr. Priscilla White of the Joslin Clinic had recorded that women who had so-called ‘normal hormonal balance’ – basically good glucose control – had very low rates of fetal demise and fetal loss compared with those who did not have good control. You had the opportunity to work alongside Dr. White. How did she achieve these results without all the tools we have today?
Dr. Gabbe: In 1925, the perinatal mortality in pregnancies complicated by type 1 diabetes was about 40%. By 1965 it was 10%, and when I began my residency at the Joslin Clinic and Boston Hospital for Women in 1972 it was closer to 5%
In those days we didn’t have accurate methods for dating pregnancies or assessing fetal size or well-being. We didn’t have tools to monitor blood glucose levels, and our insulins were limited to regular insulins and NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) as a basal insulin.
Dr. White had concluded early on, and wrote in a 1928 paper, that controlling diabetes was essential to fetal welfare and that the “high glucose content of placental blood” was probably linked to excessive fetal growth. She also wrote about the importance of “close and persistent supervision” of the patient by both an internist and obstetrician.
When I began working with her in the 1970s, her program involved antepartum visits every week or two and a team approach. Patients would be seen by Dr. White and other diabetologists, by head obstetrician Dr. Luke Gillespie, and by nurses and nutritionists. At the end of each day, after all the patients had been seen, we’d gather in Dr. White’s office and look at each patient’s single morning blood glucose measurement and the histories we’d obtained, and we’d make adjustments to their insulin regimens.
Dr. White’s solution to the problem of monitoring blood glucose was a program of hospitalization throughout pregnancy. Patients were hospitalized for a week initially to achieve blood glucose control, and then again around 20 weeks of gestation for monitoring and improvement. Hospitalizations later in the pregnancy were timed according to her classification of obstetric diabetes, which had been published in a landmark paper in 1949. In that paper Dr. Priscilla White wrote: “It is evident that age at onset of diabetes, duration, severity, and degree of maternal vascular disease all influence the fetal survival unfavorably”(Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:295-9 / Am J Med. 1949;7:609-16).
The classification system considered age of onset, duration of diabetes, need for insulin, and presence of vascular disease. Women in higher classes and at greater risk for intrauterine death were admitted at 32 weeks, while those at less risk could wait until about 34 weeks. The timing of delivery was somewhat arbitrary, but the goal was to choose a time at which the fetus could survive in the nursery and, as Dr. White had written, “before the dreaded late intrauterine accident could occur.” (In the early ’70s, approximately half of newborns admitted to [newborn intensive care unites] at 32 weeks would survive.)
We did measure estriol levels through 24-hour urine collections as a marker for fetal and placental well-being, but as we subsequently learned, a sharp drop was often too late an indicator that something was wrong.
Dr. Landon: Dr. White and others trying to manage diabetes in pregnancy during the initial decades after insulin’s discovery were indeed significantly handicapped by a lack of tools for assessing glucose control. However, the 1970s then ushered in a “Golden Era” of fetal testing. How did advances in antepartum fetal monitoring complement the use of insulin?
Dr. Gabbe: By the mid-1970s, researchers had recognized that fetal heart rate decelerations in labor signaled fetal hypoxemia, and Dr. Roger Freeman had applied these findings to the antepartum setting, pioneering development of the contraction stress test, or oxytocin stress test. The absence of late decelerations during 10 minutes of contractions meant that the fetus was unlikely to be compromised.
When the test was administered to high-risk patients at Los Angeles County Women’s Hospital, including women with diabetes, a negative result predicted that a baby would not die within the next week. The contraction stress test was a major breakthrough. It was the first biophysical test for fetal compromise and was important for pregnancies complicated by diabetes. However, it had to be done on the labor and delivery floor, it could take hours, and it might not be definitive if one couldn’t produce enough contractions.
In the mid-1970s, the nonstress test, which relied on the presence of fetal heart rate accelerations in response to fetal movement, was found to be as reliable as the contraction stress test. It became another important tool for prolonging gestation in women with type 1 diabetes.
Even more predictive and reliable was the biophysical profile described several years later. It combined the nonstress test with an assessment using real-time fetal ultrasound of fetal movements, fetal tone and breathing movements, and amniotic fluid.
So, in a relatively short period of time, antepartum surveillance progressed from the contraction stress test to the nonstress test to the biophysical profile. These advances, along with advances in neonatal intensive care, all contributed to the continued decline in perinatal mortality.
Dr. Landon: You have taught for many years that the principal benefit of these tests of fetal surveillance is not necessarily the results identifying a fetus at risk, but the reassuring normal results that allow further maturation of the fetus that is not at risk in the pregnancy complicated by type 1 diabetes.
You also taught – as I experienced some 40 years ago when training with you at the University of Pennsylvania – that hospitalization later in pregnancy allowed for valuable optimization of our patients’ insulin regimens prior to their scheduled deliveries. This optimization helped to reduce complications such as neonatal hypoglycemia.
The introduction of the first reflectance meters to the antepartum unit eliminated the need for so many blood draws. Subsequently, came portable self-monitoring blood glucose units, which I’d argue were the second greatest achievement after the introduction of insulin because they eliminated the need for routine antepartum admissions. What are your thoughts?
Dr. Gabbe: The reflectance meters as first developed were in-hospital devices. They needed frequent calibration, and readings took several minutes. Once introduced, however, there was rapid advancement in their accuracy, size, and speed of providing results.
Other important advances were the development of rapid-acting insulins and new basal insulins and, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the development of insulin pumps. At Penn, we studied an early pump that we called the “blue brick” because of its size. Today, of course, smaller and safer pumps paired with continuous glucose monitors are making an enormous difference for our patients with type 1 diabetes, providing them with much better outcomes.
Dr. Landon: A century after the discovery of insulin, congenital malformations remain a problem. We have seen a reduction overall, but recent data here and in Sweden show that the rate of malformations in pregnancy complicated by diabetes still is several-fold greater than in the general population.
The data also support what we’ve known for decades – that the level of glucose control during the periconceptual period is directly correlated with the risk of malformations. Can you speak to our efforts, which have been somewhat, but not completely, successful?
Dr. Gabbe: This is one of our remaining challenges. Malformations are now the leading cause of perinatal mortality in pregnancies involving type 1 and type 2 diabetes. We’ve seen these tragic outcomes over the years. While there were always questions about what caused malformations, our concerns focused on hyperglycemia early in pregnancy as a risk factor.
Knowing now that it is an abnormal intrauterine milieu during the period of organogenesis that leads to the malformations, we have improved by having patients come to us before pregnancy. Studies have shown that we can reduce malformations to a level comparable to the general population, or perhaps a bit higher, through intensive control as a result of prepregnancy care.
The challenge is that many obstetric patients don’t have a planned pregnancy. Our efforts to improve glucose control don’t always go the way we’d like them to. Still, considering where we’ve come from since the introduction of insulin to the modern management of diabetes in pregnancy, our progress has been truly remarkable.
Mark B. Landon, MD: The discovery of insulin in 1921 by Dr. Frederick Banting and Dr. Charles Best and its introduction into clinical practice may well be the most significant achievement in the care of pregnant women with diabetes mellitus in the last century. Why was this advance so monumental?
Steven G. Gabbe, MD: Insulin is the single most important drug we use in taking care of diabetes in pregnancy. It is required not only by all patients with type 1 diabetes, but also by the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes. Moreover, at least a third of our patients with gestational diabetes require more than lifestyle change. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Diabetes Association recommend that insulin be considered as the first-line pharmacologic therapy.
Before insulin, the most prudent option for women who had glucose in their urine early in pregnancy, which was called “true diabetes,” was deemed to be termination of the pregnancy. The chances of surviving a pregnancy, and of having a surviving infant, were low.
Pregnancies were a rarity to begin with because most women of reproductive age died within a year or two of the onset of their illness. Moreover, most women with what we now know as type 1 diabetes were amenorrheic and infertile. In fact, before insulin, there were few cases of pregnancy complicated by diabetes reported in the literature. A summary of the world literature published in 1909 in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences reported: 66 pregnancies in 43 women; 50% maternal mortality (27% immediate; 23% in next 2 years); and a 41% pregnancy loss (Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:295-9, Cited Am J Med Sci. 1909;137:1).
The first injection of insulin was administered in 1922 to a 13-year-old Canadian boy, and for several years the focus was on children. (Some of them had been kept alive with 450 calories/day long enough to benefit from the new treatment.)
For women with what we now know as type 1 diabetes, insulin kept them alive, restored their fertility, and enabled them to survive a pregnancy. Maternal mortality dropped dramatically, down to a few percent, once pregnant women became beneficiaries of insulin therapy.
Perinatal outcomes remained poor, however. In the early years of insulin therapy, more than half of the babies died. Some were stillbirths, which had been the primary cause of perinatal deaths in the pre-insulin era. Others were spontaneous preterm births, and still others were delivered prematurely in order to avert a stillbirth, and subsequently died.
Dr. Landon: A significant improvement in perinatal outcomes was eventually realized about two decades after insulin was introduced. By then Dr. Priscilla White of the Joslin Clinic had recorded that women who had so-called ‘normal hormonal balance’ – basically good glucose control – had very low rates of fetal demise and fetal loss compared with those who did not have good control. You had the opportunity to work alongside Dr. White. How did she achieve these results without all the tools we have today?
Dr. Gabbe: In 1925, the perinatal mortality in pregnancies complicated by type 1 diabetes was about 40%. By 1965 it was 10%, and when I began my residency at the Joslin Clinic and Boston Hospital for Women in 1972 it was closer to 5%
In those days we didn’t have accurate methods for dating pregnancies or assessing fetal size or well-being. We didn’t have tools to monitor blood glucose levels, and our insulins were limited to regular insulins and NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) as a basal insulin.
Dr. White had concluded early on, and wrote in a 1928 paper, that controlling diabetes was essential to fetal welfare and that the “high glucose content of placental blood” was probably linked to excessive fetal growth. She also wrote about the importance of “close and persistent supervision” of the patient by both an internist and obstetrician.
When I began working with her in the 1970s, her program involved antepartum visits every week or two and a team approach. Patients would be seen by Dr. White and other diabetologists, by head obstetrician Dr. Luke Gillespie, and by nurses and nutritionists. At the end of each day, after all the patients had been seen, we’d gather in Dr. White’s office and look at each patient’s single morning blood glucose measurement and the histories we’d obtained, and we’d make adjustments to their insulin regimens.
Dr. White’s solution to the problem of monitoring blood glucose was a program of hospitalization throughout pregnancy. Patients were hospitalized for a week initially to achieve blood glucose control, and then again around 20 weeks of gestation for monitoring and improvement. Hospitalizations later in the pregnancy were timed according to her classification of obstetric diabetes, which had been published in a landmark paper in 1949. In that paper Dr. Priscilla White wrote: “It is evident that age at onset of diabetes, duration, severity, and degree of maternal vascular disease all influence the fetal survival unfavorably”(Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:295-9 / Am J Med. 1949;7:609-16).
The classification system considered age of onset, duration of diabetes, need for insulin, and presence of vascular disease. Women in higher classes and at greater risk for intrauterine death were admitted at 32 weeks, while those at less risk could wait until about 34 weeks. The timing of delivery was somewhat arbitrary, but the goal was to choose a time at which the fetus could survive in the nursery and, as Dr. White had written, “before the dreaded late intrauterine accident could occur.” (In the early ’70s, approximately half of newborns admitted to [newborn intensive care unites] at 32 weeks would survive.)
We did measure estriol levels through 24-hour urine collections as a marker for fetal and placental well-being, but as we subsequently learned, a sharp drop was often too late an indicator that something was wrong.
Dr. Landon: Dr. White and others trying to manage diabetes in pregnancy during the initial decades after insulin’s discovery were indeed significantly handicapped by a lack of tools for assessing glucose control. However, the 1970s then ushered in a “Golden Era” of fetal testing. How did advances in antepartum fetal monitoring complement the use of insulin?
Dr. Gabbe: By the mid-1970s, researchers had recognized that fetal heart rate decelerations in labor signaled fetal hypoxemia, and Dr. Roger Freeman had applied these findings to the antepartum setting, pioneering development of the contraction stress test, or oxytocin stress test. The absence of late decelerations during 10 minutes of contractions meant that the fetus was unlikely to be compromised.
When the test was administered to high-risk patients at Los Angeles County Women’s Hospital, including women with diabetes, a negative result predicted that a baby would not die within the next week. The contraction stress test was a major breakthrough. It was the first biophysical test for fetal compromise and was important for pregnancies complicated by diabetes. However, it had to be done on the labor and delivery floor, it could take hours, and it might not be definitive if one couldn’t produce enough contractions.
In the mid-1970s, the nonstress test, which relied on the presence of fetal heart rate accelerations in response to fetal movement, was found to be as reliable as the contraction stress test. It became another important tool for prolonging gestation in women with type 1 diabetes.
Even more predictive and reliable was the biophysical profile described several years later. It combined the nonstress test with an assessment using real-time fetal ultrasound of fetal movements, fetal tone and breathing movements, and amniotic fluid.
So, in a relatively short period of time, antepartum surveillance progressed from the contraction stress test to the nonstress test to the biophysical profile. These advances, along with advances in neonatal intensive care, all contributed to the continued decline in perinatal mortality.
Dr. Landon: You have taught for many years that the principal benefit of these tests of fetal surveillance is not necessarily the results identifying a fetus at risk, but the reassuring normal results that allow further maturation of the fetus that is not at risk in the pregnancy complicated by type 1 diabetes.
You also taught – as I experienced some 40 years ago when training with you at the University of Pennsylvania – that hospitalization later in pregnancy allowed for valuable optimization of our patients’ insulin regimens prior to their scheduled deliveries. This optimization helped to reduce complications such as neonatal hypoglycemia.
The introduction of the first reflectance meters to the antepartum unit eliminated the need for so many blood draws. Subsequently, came portable self-monitoring blood glucose units, which I’d argue were the second greatest achievement after the introduction of insulin because they eliminated the need for routine antepartum admissions. What are your thoughts?
Dr. Gabbe: The reflectance meters as first developed were in-hospital devices. They needed frequent calibration, and readings took several minutes. Once introduced, however, there was rapid advancement in their accuracy, size, and speed of providing results.
Other important advances were the development of rapid-acting insulins and new basal insulins and, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the development of insulin pumps. At Penn, we studied an early pump that we called the “blue brick” because of its size. Today, of course, smaller and safer pumps paired with continuous glucose monitors are making an enormous difference for our patients with type 1 diabetes, providing them with much better outcomes.
Dr. Landon: A century after the discovery of insulin, congenital malformations remain a problem. We have seen a reduction overall, but recent data here and in Sweden show that the rate of malformations in pregnancy complicated by diabetes still is several-fold greater than in the general population.
The data also support what we’ve known for decades – that the level of glucose control during the periconceptual period is directly correlated with the risk of malformations. Can you speak to our efforts, which have been somewhat, but not completely, successful?
Dr. Gabbe: This is one of our remaining challenges. Malformations are now the leading cause of perinatal mortality in pregnancies involving type 1 and type 2 diabetes. We’ve seen these tragic outcomes over the years. While there were always questions about what caused malformations, our concerns focused on hyperglycemia early in pregnancy as a risk factor.
Knowing now that it is an abnormal intrauterine milieu during the period of organogenesis that leads to the malformations, we have improved by having patients come to us before pregnancy. Studies have shown that we can reduce malformations to a level comparable to the general population, or perhaps a bit higher, through intensive control as a result of prepregnancy care.
The challenge is that many obstetric patients don’t have a planned pregnancy. Our efforts to improve glucose control don’t always go the way we’d like them to. Still, considering where we’ve come from since the introduction of insulin to the modern management of diabetes in pregnancy, our progress has been truly remarkable.
Insulin in pregnancy: A look back at history for Diabetes Awareness Month
Each November, Diabetes Awareness Month, we commemorate the myriad advances that have made living with diabetes possible. This year is especially auspicious as it marks the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin by Frederick Banting, MD, and Charles Best, MD. The miracle of insulin cannot be overstated. In the preinsulin era, life expectancy after a diabetes diagnosis was 4-7 years for a 30-year-old patient. Within 3 years after the introduction of insulin, life expectancy after diagnosis jumped to about 17 years, a 167% increase.1
For ob.gyns. and their patients, insulin was a godsend. In the early 1920s, patients with pre-existing diabetes and pregnancy (recall that gestational diabetes mellitus would not be recognized as a unique condition until the 1960s)2 were advised to terminate the pregnancy; those who did not do so faced almost certain death for the fetus and, sometimes, themselves.3 By 1935, approximately 10 years after the introduction of insulin into practice, perinatal mortality dropped by 25%. By 1955, it had dropped by nearly 63%.4
The advent of technologies such as continuous glucose monitors, mobile phone–based health applications, and the artificial pancreas, have further transformed diabetes care.5 In addition, studies using animal models of diabetic pregnancy have revealed the molecular mechanisms responsible for hyperglycemia-induced birth defects – including alterations in lipid metabolism, excess generation of free radicals, and aberrant cell death – and uncovered potential strategies for prevention.6
To reflect on the herculean accomplishments in ob.gyn. since the discovery of insulin, we have invited two pillars of the diabetes in pregnancy research and clinical care communities: Steven G. Gabbe, MD, current professor of ob.gyn. at The Ohio State University (OSU) College of Medicine, former chair of ob.gyn. at OSU and University of Washington Medical Center, former senior vice president for health sciences and CEO of the OSU Medical Center, and former dean of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; and Mark B. Landon, MD, the Richard L. Meiling professor and chair of ob.gyn. at OSU.
Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].
References
1. Brostoff JM et al. Diabetologia. 2007;50(6):1351-3.
2. Panaitescu AM and Peltecu G. Acta Endocrinol (Buchar). 2016;12(3):331-4.
3. Joslin EP. Boston Med Surg J 1915;173:841-9.
4. Gabbe SG and Graves CR. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(4):857-68.
5. Crimmins SD et al. Clin Diabetes. 2020;38(5):486-94.
6. Gabbay-Benziv R et al. World J Diabetes. 2015;6(3):481-8.
Each November, Diabetes Awareness Month, we commemorate the myriad advances that have made living with diabetes possible. This year is especially auspicious as it marks the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin by Frederick Banting, MD, and Charles Best, MD. The miracle of insulin cannot be overstated. In the preinsulin era, life expectancy after a diabetes diagnosis was 4-7 years for a 30-year-old patient. Within 3 years after the introduction of insulin, life expectancy after diagnosis jumped to about 17 years, a 167% increase.1
For ob.gyns. and their patients, insulin was a godsend. In the early 1920s, patients with pre-existing diabetes and pregnancy (recall that gestational diabetes mellitus would not be recognized as a unique condition until the 1960s)2 were advised to terminate the pregnancy; those who did not do so faced almost certain death for the fetus and, sometimes, themselves.3 By 1935, approximately 10 years after the introduction of insulin into practice, perinatal mortality dropped by 25%. By 1955, it had dropped by nearly 63%.4
The advent of technologies such as continuous glucose monitors, mobile phone–based health applications, and the artificial pancreas, have further transformed diabetes care.5 In addition, studies using animal models of diabetic pregnancy have revealed the molecular mechanisms responsible for hyperglycemia-induced birth defects – including alterations in lipid metabolism, excess generation of free radicals, and aberrant cell death – and uncovered potential strategies for prevention.6
To reflect on the herculean accomplishments in ob.gyn. since the discovery of insulin, we have invited two pillars of the diabetes in pregnancy research and clinical care communities: Steven G. Gabbe, MD, current professor of ob.gyn. at The Ohio State University (OSU) College of Medicine, former chair of ob.gyn. at OSU and University of Washington Medical Center, former senior vice president for health sciences and CEO of the OSU Medical Center, and former dean of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; and Mark B. Landon, MD, the Richard L. Meiling professor and chair of ob.gyn. at OSU.
Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].
References
1. Brostoff JM et al. Diabetologia. 2007;50(6):1351-3.
2. Panaitescu AM and Peltecu G. Acta Endocrinol (Buchar). 2016;12(3):331-4.
3. Joslin EP. Boston Med Surg J 1915;173:841-9.
4. Gabbe SG and Graves CR. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(4):857-68.
5. Crimmins SD et al. Clin Diabetes. 2020;38(5):486-94.
6. Gabbay-Benziv R et al. World J Diabetes. 2015;6(3):481-8.
Each November, Diabetes Awareness Month, we commemorate the myriad advances that have made living with diabetes possible. This year is especially auspicious as it marks the 100th anniversary of the discovery of insulin by Frederick Banting, MD, and Charles Best, MD. The miracle of insulin cannot be overstated. In the preinsulin era, life expectancy after a diabetes diagnosis was 4-7 years for a 30-year-old patient. Within 3 years after the introduction of insulin, life expectancy after diagnosis jumped to about 17 years, a 167% increase.1
For ob.gyns. and their patients, insulin was a godsend. In the early 1920s, patients with pre-existing diabetes and pregnancy (recall that gestational diabetes mellitus would not be recognized as a unique condition until the 1960s)2 were advised to terminate the pregnancy; those who did not do so faced almost certain death for the fetus and, sometimes, themselves.3 By 1935, approximately 10 years after the introduction of insulin into practice, perinatal mortality dropped by 25%. By 1955, it had dropped by nearly 63%.4
The advent of technologies such as continuous glucose monitors, mobile phone–based health applications, and the artificial pancreas, have further transformed diabetes care.5 In addition, studies using animal models of diabetic pregnancy have revealed the molecular mechanisms responsible for hyperglycemia-induced birth defects – including alterations in lipid metabolism, excess generation of free radicals, and aberrant cell death – and uncovered potential strategies for prevention.6
To reflect on the herculean accomplishments in ob.gyn. since the discovery of insulin, we have invited two pillars of the diabetes in pregnancy research and clinical care communities: Steven G. Gabbe, MD, current professor of ob.gyn. at The Ohio State University (OSU) College of Medicine, former chair of ob.gyn. at OSU and University of Washington Medical Center, former senior vice president for health sciences and CEO of the OSU Medical Center, and former dean of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; and Mark B. Landon, MD, the Richard L. Meiling professor and chair of ob.gyn. at OSU.
Dr. Reece, who specializes in maternal-fetal medicine, is executive vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, as well as the John Z. and Akiko K. Bowers Distinguished Professor and dean of the school of medicine. He is the medical editor of this column. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Contact him at [email protected].
References
1. Brostoff JM et al. Diabetologia. 2007;50(6):1351-3.
2. Panaitescu AM and Peltecu G. Acta Endocrinol (Buchar). 2016;12(3):331-4.
3. Joslin EP. Boston Med Surg J 1915;173:841-9.
4. Gabbe SG and Graves CR. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(4):857-68.
5. Crimmins SD et al. Clin Diabetes. 2020;38(5):486-94.
6. Gabbay-Benziv R et al. World J Diabetes. 2015;6(3):481-8.
Your patient’s medication label lacks human safety information: What now?
Nearly 9 in 10 U.S. women take a medication at some point in their pregnancy, with approximately 50% of women taking at least one prescription medication.1 These medications may be prescribed without the benefit of knowledge gained through clinical trials. Knowledge is gained after market, often after multiple years, and potentially following widespread use. The situation is similar for vaccines, as was recently seen with the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. Early in the pandemic, evidence emerged that pregnancy increased the risk for severe illness from COVID-19, yet pregnant people and their providers were forced to make a difficult decision of risk/benefit with little data to guide them.
The FDA product label provides a summary and narrative of animal and human safety studies relating to pregnancy. But what if that label contains little to no information, or reports studies with conflicting results? Perhaps the product is new on the market or is infrequently used during pregnancy. Regardless, health care providers and pregnant patients still need to make decisions about medication use. The following list outlines information that can be found, and strategies to support providers and patients in making informed choices for a treatment plan.
Taking stock of the available information:
- If possible, connect with the specialist who prescribed the patient’s medication in question. They may have already assembled information regarding use of that medication in pregnancy.
- The sponsor may have published useful information from the phase 3 trials, including the outcomes of enrolled patients who inadvertently became pregnant.
- Review the animal data in the product label. Regulators require the careful selection of animal models, and this data can present a source of adjunct information regarding the medication’s effects on pregnancy, reproduction, and development. Negative results can be as revealing as positive results.
- Pharmacologic data in the label can also be informative. Although most labels have pharmacologic data based on trials in healthy nonpregnant individuals, understanding pregnancy physiology and the patient’s preexisting or pregnancy-specific condition(s) can provide insights.2 Close patient monitoring and follow-up are of key importance.
- Consider viable alternatives that may address the patient’s needs. There may be effective alternatives that have been better studied and shown to have low reproductive toxicity.
- Consider the risks to the patient as well as the developing fetus if the preexisting or pregnancy-specific condition is uncontrolled.
- Consult a teratogen specialist who can provide information to both patients and health care providers on the reproductive hazards or safety of many exposures, even those with limited data regarding use in pregnancy. For example, MotherToBaby provides a network of teratogen specialists.
Understanding perceptions of risk, decision-making, and strategies to support informed choices:
- Perceptions of risk: Each person perceives risk and benefit differently. The few studies that have attempted to investigate perception of teratogenic risk have found that many pregnant people overestimate the magnitude of teratogenic risk associated with a particular exposure.3 Alternatively, a medication’s benefit in controlling the maternal condition is often not considered sufficiently. Health care providers may have their own distorted perceptions of risk, even in the presence of evidence.
- Decision-making: Most teratogen data inherently involve uncertainty; it is rare to have completely nonconflicting data with which to make a decision. This makes decisions about whether or not to utilize a particular medication or other agent in pregnancy very difficult. For example, a patient would prefer to be told a black and white answer such as vaccines are either 100% safe or 100% harmful. However, no medical treatment is held to that standard of certainty. Even though it may be more comfortable to avoid an action and “just let things happen,” the lack of a decision is still a decision. The decision to not take medication may have risks inherent in not treating a condition and may result in adverse outcomes in the developing fetus. Lastly, presenting teratogen information often involves challenges in portraying and interpreting numerical risk. For example, when considering data presented in fraction format, patients and some health care providers may focus on the numerator or count of adverse events, while ignoring the magnitude of the denominator.
- Strategies: Health literacy “best practice” strategies are useful whether there is a lot of data or very little. These include the of use plain language and messages delivered in a clear and respectful voice, the use of visual aids, and the use effective teaching methods such as asking open-ended questions to assess understanding. Other strategies include using caution in framing information: for example, discussing a 1% increase in risk for a baby to have a medication-associated birth defect should also be presented as a 99% chance the medication will not cause a birth defect. Numeracy challenges can also be addressed by using natural numbers rather than fractions or percentages: for example, if there were 100 women in this room, one would have a baby with a birth defect after taking this medication in pregnancy, but 99 of these women would not.
In today’s medical world, shared decision-making is the preferred approach to choices. Communicating and appropriately utilizing information to make choices about medication safety in pregnancy are vital undertakings. An important provider responsibility is helping patients understand that science is built on evidence that amasses and changes over time and that it represents rich shades of gray rather than “black and white” options.
Contributing to evidence: A pregnancy exposure registry is a study that collects health information from women who take prescription medicines or vaccines when they are pregnant. Information is also collected on the neonate. This information is compared with women who have not taken medicine during pregnancy. Enrolling in a pregnancy exposure registry can help improve safety information for medication used during pregnancy and can be used to update drug labeling. Please consult the Food and Drug Administration listing below to learn if there is an ongoing registry for the patient’s medication in question. If there is and the patient is eligible, provide her with the information. If she is interested and willing, help her enroll. It’s a great step toward building the scientific evidence on medication safety in pregnancy.
For further information about health literacy, consult:
https://www.cdc.gov/pregnancy/meds/treatingfortwo/index.html
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/index.html
https://mothertobaby.org
The MotherToBaby web page has hundreds of fact sheets written in a way that patients can understand, and available in English and Spanish. MotherToBaby coordinates research studies on specific agents. The toll-free number is 866-626-6847.
For a listing of pregnancy registries, consult:
https://www.fda.gov/science-research/womens-health-research/pregnancy-registries
Dr. Hardy is executive director, head of pharmacoepidemiology, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. She serves as a member of Council for the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention (BDRP), represents the BDRP on the Coalition to Advance Maternal Therapeutics, and is a member of the North American Board for Amandla Development, South Africa. Dr. Conover is the director of Nebraska MotherToBaby. She is assistant professor at the Munroe Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center.
References
1. Mitchell AA et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(1):51:e1-e8.
2. Feghali M et al. Semin Perinatol 2015;39:512-9.
3. Conover EA, Polifka JE. Am J Med Genet Part C Semin Med Genet 2011;157:227-33.
Nearly 9 in 10 U.S. women take a medication at some point in their pregnancy, with approximately 50% of women taking at least one prescription medication.1 These medications may be prescribed without the benefit of knowledge gained through clinical trials. Knowledge is gained after market, often after multiple years, and potentially following widespread use. The situation is similar for vaccines, as was recently seen with the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. Early in the pandemic, evidence emerged that pregnancy increased the risk for severe illness from COVID-19, yet pregnant people and their providers were forced to make a difficult decision of risk/benefit with little data to guide them.
The FDA product label provides a summary and narrative of animal and human safety studies relating to pregnancy. But what if that label contains little to no information, or reports studies with conflicting results? Perhaps the product is new on the market or is infrequently used during pregnancy. Regardless, health care providers and pregnant patients still need to make decisions about medication use. The following list outlines information that can be found, and strategies to support providers and patients in making informed choices for a treatment plan.
Taking stock of the available information:
- If possible, connect with the specialist who prescribed the patient’s medication in question. They may have already assembled information regarding use of that medication in pregnancy.
- The sponsor may have published useful information from the phase 3 trials, including the outcomes of enrolled patients who inadvertently became pregnant.
- Review the animal data in the product label. Regulators require the careful selection of animal models, and this data can present a source of adjunct information regarding the medication’s effects on pregnancy, reproduction, and development. Negative results can be as revealing as positive results.
- Pharmacologic data in the label can also be informative. Although most labels have pharmacologic data based on trials in healthy nonpregnant individuals, understanding pregnancy physiology and the patient’s preexisting or pregnancy-specific condition(s) can provide insights.2 Close patient monitoring and follow-up are of key importance.
- Consider viable alternatives that may address the patient’s needs. There may be effective alternatives that have been better studied and shown to have low reproductive toxicity.
- Consider the risks to the patient as well as the developing fetus if the preexisting or pregnancy-specific condition is uncontrolled.
- Consult a teratogen specialist who can provide information to both patients and health care providers on the reproductive hazards or safety of many exposures, even those with limited data regarding use in pregnancy. For example, MotherToBaby provides a network of teratogen specialists.
Understanding perceptions of risk, decision-making, and strategies to support informed choices:
- Perceptions of risk: Each person perceives risk and benefit differently. The few studies that have attempted to investigate perception of teratogenic risk have found that many pregnant people overestimate the magnitude of teratogenic risk associated with a particular exposure.3 Alternatively, a medication’s benefit in controlling the maternal condition is often not considered sufficiently. Health care providers may have their own distorted perceptions of risk, even in the presence of evidence.
- Decision-making: Most teratogen data inherently involve uncertainty; it is rare to have completely nonconflicting data with which to make a decision. This makes decisions about whether or not to utilize a particular medication or other agent in pregnancy very difficult. For example, a patient would prefer to be told a black and white answer such as vaccines are either 100% safe or 100% harmful. However, no medical treatment is held to that standard of certainty. Even though it may be more comfortable to avoid an action and “just let things happen,” the lack of a decision is still a decision. The decision to not take medication may have risks inherent in not treating a condition and may result in adverse outcomes in the developing fetus. Lastly, presenting teratogen information often involves challenges in portraying and interpreting numerical risk. For example, when considering data presented in fraction format, patients and some health care providers may focus on the numerator or count of adverse events, while ignoring the magnitude of the denominator.
- Strategies: Health literacy “best practice” strategies are useful whether there is a lot of data or very little. These include the of use plain language and messages delivered in a clear and respectful voice, the use of visual aids, and the use effective teaching methods such as asking open-ended questions to assess understanding. Other strategies include using caution in framing information: for example, discussing a 1% increase in risk for a baby to have a medication-associated birth defect should also be presented as a 99% chance the medication will not cause a birth defect. Numeracy challenges can also be addressed by using natural numbers rather than fractions or percentages: for example, if there were 100 women in this room, one would have a baby with a birth defect after taking this medication in pregnancy, but 99 of these women would not.
In today’s medical world, shared decision-making is the preferred approach to choices. Communicating and appropriately utilizing information to make choices about medication safety in pregnancy are vital undertakings. An important provider responsibility is helping patients understand that science is built on evidence that amasses and changes over time and that it represents rich shades of gray rather than “black and white” options.
Contributing to evidence: A pregnancy exposure registry is a study that collects health information from women who take prescription medicines or vaccines when they are pregnant. Information is also collected on the neonate. This information is compared with women who have not taken medicine during pregnancy. Enrolling in a pregnancy exposure registry can help improve safety information for medication used during pregnancy and can be used to update drug labeling. Please consult the Food and Drug Administration listing below to learn if there is an ongoing registry for the patient’s medication in question. If there is and the patient is eligible, provide her with the information. If she is interested and willing, help her enroll. It’s a great step toward building the scientific evidence on medication safety in pregnancy.
For further information about health literacy, consult:
https://www.cdc.gov/pregnancy/meds/treatingfortwo/index.html
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/index.html
https://mothertobaby.org
The MotherToBaby web page has hundreds of fact sheets written in a way that patients can understand, and available in English and Spanish. MotherToBaby coordinates research studies on specific agents. The toll-free number is 866-626-6847.
For a listing of pregnancy registries, consult:
https://www.fda.gov/science-research/womens-health-research/pregnancy-registries
Dr. Hardy is executive director, head of pharmacoepidemiology, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. She serves as a member of Council for the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention (BDRP), represents the BDRP on the Coalition to Advance Maternal Therapeutics, and is a member of the North American Board for Amandla Development, South Africa. Dr. Conover is the director of Nebraska MotherToBaby. She is assistant professor at the Munroe Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center.
References
1. Mitchell AA et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(1):51:e1-e8.
2. Feghali M et al. Semin Perinatol 2015;39:512-9.
3. Conover EA, Polifka JE. Am J Med Genet Part C Semin Med Genet 2011;157:227-33.
Nearly 9 in 10 U.S. women take a medication at some point in their pregnancy, with approximately 50% of women taking at least one prescription medication.1 These medications may be prescribed without the benefit of knowledge gained through clinical trials. Knowledge is gained after market, often after multiple years, and potentially following widespread use. The situation is similar for vaccines, as was recently seen with the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. Early in the pandemic, evidence emerged that pregnancy increased the risk for severe illness from COVID-19, yet pregnant people and their providers were forced to make a difficult decision of risk/benefit with little data to guide them.
The FDA product label provides a summary and narrative of animal and human safety studies relating to pregnancy. But what if that label contains little to no information, or reports studies with conflicting results? Perhaps the product is new on the market or is infrequently used during pregnancy. Regardless, health care providers and pregnant patients still need to make decisions about medication use. The following list outlines information that can be found, and strategies to support providers and patients in making informed choices for a treatment plan.
Taking stock of the available information:
- If possible, connect with the specialist who prescribed the patient’s medication in question. They may have already assembled information regarding use of that medication in pregnancy.
- The sponsor may have published useful information from the phase 3 trials, including the outcomes of enrolled patients who inadvertently became pregnant.
- Review the animal data in the product label. Regulators require the careful selection of animal models, and this data can present a source of adjunct information regarding the medication’s effects on pregnancy, reproduction, and development. Negative results can be as revealing as positive results.
- Pharmacologic data in the label can also be informative. Although most labels have pharmacologic data based on trials in healthy nonpregnant individuals, understanding pregnancy physiology and the patient’s preexisting or pregnancy-specific condition(s) can provide insights.2 Close patient monitoring and follow-up are of key importance.
- Consider viable alternatives that may address the patient’s needs. There may be effective alternatives that have been better studied and shown to have low reproductive toxicity.
- Consider the risks to the patient as well as the developing fetus if the preexisting or pregnancy-specific condition is uncontrolled.
- Consult a teratogen specialist who can provide information to both patients and health care providers on the reproductive hazards or safety of many exposures, even those with limited data regarding use in pregnancy. For example, MotherToBaby provides a network of teratogen specialists.
Understanding perceptions of risk, decision-making, and strategies to support informed choices:
- Perceptions of risk: Each person perceives risk and benefit differently. The few studies that have attempted to investigate perception of teratogenic risk have found that many pregnant people overestimate the magnitude of teratogenic risk associated with a particular exposure.3 Alternatively, a medication’s benefit in controlling the maternal condition is often not considered sufficiently. Health care providers may have their own distorted perceptions of risk, even in the presence of evidence.
- Decision-making: Most teratogen data inherently involve uncertainty; it is rare to have completely nonconflicting data with which to make a decision. This makes decisions about whether or not to utilize a particular medication or other agent in pregnancy very difficult. For example, a patient would prefer to be told a black and white answer such as vaccines are either 100% safe or 100% harmful. However, no medical treatment is held to that standard of certainty. Even though it may be more comfortable to avoid an action and “just let things happen,” the lack of a decision is still a decision. The decision to not take medication may have risks inherent in not treating a condition and may result in adverse outcomes in the developing fetus. Lastly, presenting teratogen information often involves challenges in portraying and interpreting numerical risk. For example, when considering data presented in fraction format, patients and some health care providers may focus on the numerator or count of adverse events, while ignoring the magnitude of the denominator.
- Strategies: Health literacy “best practice” strategies are useful whether there is a lot of data or very little. These include the of use plain language and messages delivered in a clear and respectful voice, the use of visual aids, and the use effective teaching methods such as asking open-ended questions to assess understanding. Other strategies include using caution in framing information: for example, discussing a 1% increase in risk for a baby to have a medication-associated birth defect should also be presented as a 99% chance the medication will not cause a birth defect. Numeracy challenges can also be addressed by using natural numbers rather than fractions or percentages: for example, if there were 100 women in this room, one would have a baby with a birth defect after taking this medication in pregnancy, but 99 of these women would not.
In today’s medical world, shared decision-making is the preferred approach to choices. Communicating and appropriately utilizing information to make choices about medication safety in pregnancy are vital undertakings. An important provider responsibility is helping patients understand that science is built on evidence that amasses and changes over time and that it represents rich shades of gray rather than “black and white” options.
Contributing to evidence: A pregnancy exposure registry is a study that collects health information from women who take prescription medicines or vaccines when they are pregnant. Information is also collected on the neonate. This information is compared with women who have not taken medicine during pregnancy. Enrolling in a pregnancy exposure registry can help improve safety information for medication used during pregnancy and can be used to update drug labeling. Please consult the Food and Drug Administration listing below to learn if there is an ongoing registry for the patient’s medication in question. If there is and the patient is eligible, provide her with the information. If she is interested and willing, help her enroll. It’s a great step toward building the scientific evidence on medication safety in pregnancy.
For further information about health literacy, consult:
https://www.cdc.gov/pregnancy/meds/treatingfortwo/index.html
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/index.html
https://mothertobaby.org
The MotherToBaby web page has hundreds of fact sheets written in a way that patients can understand, and available in English and Spanish. MotherToBaby coordinates research studies on specific agents. The toll-free number is 866-626-6847.
For a listing of pregnancy registries, consult:
https://www.fda.gov/science-research/womens-health-research/pregnancy-registries
Dr. Hardy is executive director, head of pharmacoepidemiology, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. She serves as a member of Council for the Society for Birth Defects Research and Prevention (BDRP), represents the BDRP on the Coalition to Advance Maternal Therapeutics, and is a member of the North American Board for Amandla Development, South Africa. Dr. Conover is the director of Nebraska MotherToBaby. She is assistant professor at the Munroe Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center.
References
1. Mitchell AA et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(1):51:e1-e8.
2. Feghali M et al. Semin Perinatol 2015;39:512-9.
3. Conover EA, Polifka JE. Am J Med Genet Part C Semin Med Genet 2011;157:227-33.