Tara Haelle

Children prenatally exposed to opioids alone have an increased risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but interactions between opioids and both cannabis use and alcohol use were linked to varying levels of ADHD risk as well, according to findings published March 11 in JAMA Network Open.

While many prenatal exposure studies examine associations with one substance, the results of this case-control study “suggest that it is important to consider prenatal exposure to multiple substances and the interactions between these substances when counseling women regarding substance use during pregnancy,” wrote Henri M. Garrison-Desany of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

Using data from children in the prospective Boston Birth Cohort between 1998 and 2019, the researchers did a secondary analysis on the 3,138 children (50.4% of whom were male) with at least 2 years of follow-up, excluding children from multiple-gestation pregnancies, in vitro fertilization pregnancies, and deliveries involving major maternal trauma or major chromosomal anomalies. Mothers answered a questionnaire within 24-72 hours of delivery regarding their demographics, substance use, pregnancy history, and health status. Among the mothers, 58.6% were Black, 22.3% were Hispanic, 7.2% were White, 1.5% were Asian, and 10.4% were other races/ethnicities.

The children’s electronic medical records were used to identify those with ADHD diagnoses. The researchers did not assess prescription opioid exposure during pregnancy, but they based opioid exposure on mothers’ reports of recreationally using heroin or oxycodone, mothers’ reports of receiving methadone treatment, or a newborn diagnosis of neonatal abstinence syndrome or neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome.

Just under a quarter of the women (24.2%) reported using at least one substance during pregnancy. After tobacco smoking (18.5%), the next most reported substances were alcohol (8.1%), cannabis (3.9%), and opioids (1.9%). With a median 12 years of follow-up, 15.5% of the children had been diagnosed with ADHD, most of whom (71.6%) were male.

Before considering interaction of different substances, children exposed to opioids had a little over twice the risk of ADHD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.19) compared to those with no prenatal substance exposure. Although neither cannabis nor alcohol was independently associated with ADHD, smoking had a 40% increased risk, and researchers found a 21% increase in risk of ADHD with each additional substance mothers used during pregnancy. The researchers had adjusted these findings for maternal age, race/ethnicity, marital status, educational level, annual household income, parity, number of perinatal visits, and general stress during pregnancy, based on a structured interview.

When the researchers considered all the substances together, opioid exposure increased risk of ADHD by 60% (HR, 1.6), opioids with cannabis increased risk by 42%, opioids with alcohol increased risk by 15%, and opioids with smoking increased risk by 17%.

”Our findings suggest opioids may interact with other substances (including cannabis), which may be particularly deleterious,” the researchers reported. “It is not clear whether this interaction is owing to biological or environmental factors, such as whether individuals with illicit polysubstance use are more likely to use more substances or whether they have other characteristics that may impact child development.”

The authors noted that cannabis exposure has been linked to other neurodevelopmental outcomes, including reduced executive and motor function in infants. ”Notably, although we did not find a significant independent association between cannabis exposure and ADHD, children exposed to both cannabis and opioids had a 23% greater risk than expected from either exposure individually,” they reported.

The researchers suggest that their findings provide data for considering harm reduction approaches that reduce use of any single substance during pregnancy. “Focusing on the most obviously harmful exposures may be a useful way to reduce the risk of ADHD,” they wrote. “Further work is needed to directly investigate this hypothesis and examine whether reduction in the use of any substance among those with polysubstance use could be acceptable compared with abstinence.”

In an invited commentary, Angela Lupattelli, PhD, and Nhung T. H. Trinh, PhD, both of the department of pharmacy at the University of Oslo, noted the methodological challenges of assessing exposures and associations from multiple different substances during pregnancy.

“First, how can we disentangle the consequences of individual and/or combined substance exposures during pregnancy from the underlying risks?” they asked. In addition to differences in baseline characteristic between those who use opioids or cannabis, Dr. Lupattelli and Dr. Trinh noted that other important unmeasured factors, such as genetics and family environment, may confound the effect size estimates for ADHD.

They also noted the need to consider intensity, dose, duration, and timing of substance use during pregnancy.

“Understanding the longer-term safety of substance use during pregnancy is paramount to inform prevention policy and shape counseling strategies. Observational studies, despite their limitations, are a necessary piece of the puzzle,” they wrote. “However, the study findings should be interpreted with caution, as the use of advanced analytical methods cannot overcome the unavailability of some important confounding factors and exposure information.”

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no industry-related disclosures.

Children prenatally exposed to opioids alone have an increased risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but interactions between opioids and both cannabis use and alcohol use were linked to varying levels of ADHD risk as well, according to findings published March 11 in JAMA Network Open.

While many prenatal exposure studies examine associations with one substance, the results of this case-control study “suggest that it is important to consider prenatal exposure to multiple substances and the interactions between these substances when counseling women regarding substance use during pregnancy,” wrote Henri M. Garrison-Desany of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

Using data from children in the prospective Boston Birth Cohort between 1998 and 2019, the researchers did a secondary analysis on the 3,138 children (50.4% of whom were male) with at least 2 years of follow-up, excluding children from multiple-gestation pregnancies, in vitro fertilization pregnancies, and deliveries involving major maternal trauma or major chromosomal anomalies. Mothers answered a questionnaire within 24-72 hours of delivery regarding their demographics, substance use, pregnancy history, and health status. Among the mothers, 58.6% were Black, 22.3% were Hispanic, 7.2% were White, 1.5% were Asian, and 10.4% were other races/ethnicities.

The children’s electronic medical records were used to identify those with ADHD diagnoses. The researchers did not assess prescription opioid exposure during pregnancy, but they based opioid exposure on mothers’ reports of recreationally using heroin or oxycodone, mothers’ reports of receiving methadone treatment, or a newborn diagnosis of neonatal abstinence syndrome or neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome.

Just under a quarter of the women (24.2%) reported using at least one substance during pregnancy. After tobacco smoking (18.5%), the next most reported substances were alcohol (8.1%), cannabis (3.9%), and opioids (1.9%). With a median 12 years of follow-up, 15.5% of the children had been diagnosed with ADHD, most of whom (71.6%) were male.

Before considering interaction of different substances, children exposed to opioids had a little over twice the risk of ADHD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.19) compared to those with no prenatal substance exposure. Although neither cannabis nor alcohol was independently associated with ADHD, smoking had a 40% increased risk, and researchers found a 21% increase in risk of ADHD with each additional substance mothers used during pregnancy. The researchers had adjusted these findings for maternal age, race/ethnicity, marital status, educational level, annual household income, parity, number of perinatal visits, and general stress during pregnancy, based on a structured interview.

When the researchers considered all the substances together, opioid exposure increased risk of ADHD by 60% (HR, 1.6), opioids with cannabis increased risk by 42%, opioids with alcohol increased risk by 15%, and opioids with smoking increased risk by 17%.

”Our findings suggest opioids may interact with other substances (including cannabis), which may be particularly deleterious,” the researchers reported. “It is not clear whether this interaction is owing to biological or environmental factors, such as whether individuals with illicit polysubstance use are more likely to use more substances or whether they have other characteristics that may impact child development.”

The authors noted that cannabis exposure has been linked to other neurodevelopmental outcomes, including reduced executive and motor function in infants. ”Notably, although we did not find a significant independent association between cannabis exposure and ADHD, children exposed to both cannabis and opioids had a 23% greater risk than expected from either exposure individually,” they reported.

The researchers suggest that their findings provide data for considering harm reduction approaches that reduce use of any single substance during pregnancy. “Focusing on the most obviously harmful exposures may be a useful way to reduce the risk of ADHD,” they wrote. “Further work is needed to directly investigate this hypothesis and examine whether reduction in the use of any substance among those with polysubstance use could be acceptable compared with abstinence.”

In an invited commentary, Angela Lupattelli, PhD, and Nhung T. H. Trinh, PhD, both of the department of pharmacy at the University of Oslo, noted the methodological challenges of assessing exposures and associations from multiple different substances during pregnancy.

“First, how can we disentangle the consequences of individual and/or combined substance exposures during pregnancy from the underlying risks?” they asked. In addition to differences in baseline characteristic between those who use opioids or cannabis, Dr. Lupattelli and Dr. Trinh noted that other important unmeasured factors, such as genetics and family environment, may confound the effect size estimates for ADHD.

They also noted the need to consider intensity, dose, duration, and timing of substance use during pregnancy.

“Understanding the longer-term safety of substance use during pregnancy is paramount to inform prevention policy and shape counseling strategies. Observational studies, despite their limitations, are a necessary piece of the puzzle,” they wrote. “However, the study findings should be interpreted with caution, as the use of advanced analytical methods cannot overcome the unavailability of some important confounding factors and exposure information.”

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no industry-related disclosures.

Children prenatally exposed to opioids alone have an increased risk of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but interactions between opioids and both cannabis use and alcohol use were linked to varying levels of ADHD risk as well, according to findings published March 11 in JAMA Network Open.

While many prenatal exposure studies examine associations with one substance, the results of this case-control study “suggest that it is important to consider prenatal exposure to multiple substances and the interactions between these substances when counseling women regarding substance use during pregnancy,” wrote Henri M. Garrison-Desany of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

Using data from children in the prospective Boston Birth Cohort between 1998 and 2019, the researchers did a secondary analysis on the 3,138 children (50.4% of whom were male) with at least 2 years of follow-up, excluding children from multiple-gestation pregnancies, in vitro fertilization pregnancies, and deliveries involving major maternal trauma or major chromosomal anomalies. Mothers answered a questionnaire within 24-72 hours of delivery regarding their demographics, substance use, pregnancy history, and health status. Among the mothers, 58.6% were Black, 22.3% were Hispanic, 7.2% were White, 1.5% were Asian, and 10.4% were other races/ethnicities.

The children’s electronic medical records were used to identify those with ADHD diagnoses. The researchers did not assess prescription opioid exposure during pregnancy, but they based opioid exposure on mothers’ reports of recreationally using heroin or oxycodone, mothers’ reports of receiving methadone treatment, or a newborn diagnosis of neonatal abstinence syndrome or neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome.

Just under a quarter of the women (24.2%) reported using at least one substance during pregnancy. After tobacco smoking (18.5%), the next most reported substances were alcohol (8.1%), cannabis (3.9%), and opioids (1.9%). With a median 12 years of follow-up, 15.5% of the children had been diagnosed with ADHD, most of whom (71.6%) were male.

Before considering interaction of different substances, children exposed to opioids had a little over twice the risk of ADHD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.19) compared to those with no prenatal substance exposure. Although neither cannabis nor alcohol was independently associated with ADHD, smoking had a 40% increased risk, and researchers found a 21% increase in risk of ADHD with each additional substance mothers used during pregnancy. The researchers had adjusted these findings for maternal age, race/ethnicity, marital status, educational level, annual household income, parity, number of perinatal visits, and general stress during pregnancy, based on a structured interview.

When the researchers considered all the substances together, opioid exposure increased risk of ADHD by 60% (HR, 1.6), opioids with cannabis increased risk by 42%, opioids with alcohol increased risk by 15%, and opioids with smoking increased risk by 17%.

”Our findings suggest opioids may interact with other substances (including cannabis), which may be particularly deleterious,” the researchers reported. “It is not clear whether this interaction is owing to biological or environmental factors, such as whether individuals with illicit polysubstance use are more likely to use more substances or whether they have other characteristics that may impact child development.”

The authors noted that cannabis exposure has been linked to other neurodevelopmental outcomes, including reduced executive and motor function in infants. ”Notably, although we did not find a significant independent association between cannabis exposure and ADHD, children exposed to both cannabis and opioids had a 23% greater risk than expected from either exposure individually,” they reported.

The researchers suggest that their findings provide data for considering harm reduction approaches that reduce use of any single substance during pregnancy. “Focusing on the most obviously harmful exposures may be a useful way to reduce the risk of ADHD,” they wrote. “Further work is needed to directly investigate this hypothesis and examine whether reduction in the use of any substance among those with polysubstance use could be acceptable compared with abstinence.”

In an invited commentary, Angela Lupattelli, PhD, and Nhung T. H. Trinh, PhD, both of the department of pharmacy at the University of Oslo, noted the methodological challenges of assessing exposures and associations from multiple different substances during pregnancy.

“First, how can we disentangle the consequences of individual and/or combined substance exposures during pregnancy from the underlying risks?” they asked. In addition to differences in baseline characteristic between those who use opioids or cannabis, Dr. Lupattelli and Dr. Trinh noted that other important unmeasured factors, such as genetics and family environment, may confound the effect size estimates for ADHD.

They also noted the need to consider intensity, dose, duration, and timing of substance use during pregnancy.

“Understanding the longer-term safety of substance use during pregnancy is paramount to inform prevention policy and shape counseling strategies. Observational studies, despite their limitations, are a necessary piece of the puzzle,” they wrote. “However, the study findings should be interpreted with caution, as the use of advanced analytical methods cannot overcome the unavailability of some important confounding factors and exposure information.”

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no industry-related disclosures.

Differing state regulations and a paucity of research has made it difficult to develop consensus guidelines for the use of cannabinoids in treating drug-resistant epilepsy. A recent review article draws from existing clinical trials and clinical experience in New South Wales, Australia, to fill this gap with interim guidance for both pediatric and adult patients. The article was published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

The only current U.S. guidelines are from the American Academy of Neurology’s position statement on the use of medical cannabis for neurologic disorders and the American Epilepsy Society’s position statement on cannabis as a treatment for epileptic seizures. The AAN statement “highlights the current evidence, which currently only supports [Food and Drug Administration]–approved CBD [cannabidiol] (Epidiolex) for specific epilepsy syndromes,” said Daniel Freedman, DO, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin and coauthor of the AAN’s position statement.

“Rescheduling marijuana will enable researchers to study CBD, THC [tetrahydrocannabinol], and other cannabinoids in high-quality studies so that we can better understand what works and for which conditions,” said Dr. Freedman, who was not involved in the Australian guidance document. He noted that little consensus exists because little evidence exists outside the handful of trials for Epidiolex.

“There are some patients with epilepsy that can benefit from high-quality, pharmaceutical-grade CBD products,” Dr. Freedman said. “These patients need to be carefully identified by a neurologist or epileptologist and prescribed a legal, safe, quality-controlled, and FDA-regulated product.”
 

Appropriate patient populations

Drug-resistant epilepsy, defined as failure of two appropriate antiseizure medications, affects an estimated one third of people with epilepsy, the new guideline notes. Though many over-the-counter products are available at dispensaries in the 33 U.S. states that allow use of cannabis for medical purposes, Epidiolex (cannabidiol) is the only FDA-approved drug for epilepsy that contains a substance derived from cannabis and the only one for which evidence from randomized, controlled trials exists.

Dr. Freedman notes that hemp-derived CBD oils are classified differently in the United States than marijuana-derived CBD oil, including Epidiolex, and are loosely regulated supplements or food additives commonly seen, for example at gas station.

“The point I drive home to patients is that you wouldn’t get your antibiotics from a gas station, so please don’t get your seizure medication from there,” Dr. Freedman said. “Studies have been done on ‘over-the-counter’ CBD oils and shown that they have variable quality, sometimes no detectable CBD, and sometimes other chemicals added like THC.”

Studies of Epidiolex showed that cannabidiol more effectively reduced seizure frequency than placebo for pediatric patients with Dravet syndrome (42% reduction) and for pediatric and adult patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (39% reduction) or tuberous sclerosis complex (49% reduction). Efficacy was similar across dosing from 10-50 mg/kg per day, but higher doses involved higher rates of serious adverse events.

No reliable evidence in humans exists for THC or other cannabinoids in treating epilepsy.

The Australian guidance recommends limiting cannabis treatment to patients with severe drug-resistant epilepsy; a diagnosis of Dravet syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, or tuberous sclerosis complex; and previous treatment with four approved antiseizure medications and/or the ketogenic diet, epilepsy surgery, or neurostimulator. The authors provide specific criteria for each of these conditions and then address exceptional cases that may be considered outside that criteria, such as patients under 2 years old, severe epilepsy with extended or repeated hospitalization or ICU admission, or a dangerous seizure type. The review also includes a detailed list of exclusion criteria for CBD medicine use.

The authors advised a thorough consent process before prescribing any cannabinoids, including therapeutic goals and stopping criteria; the lack of evidence available on dosing, efficacy, and side effects; and the potential for dependence or withdrawal. Consent discussions should also note whether the products are unregistered and not covered by external payers (anything other than Epidiolex currently), any activity restrictions, and any implications for occupational drug screening.
 

Considerations for unapproved cannabinoids

The authors note several factors to consider if prescribing or recommending a nonapproved, nonregulated cannabis medicine, including the ”differences between registered plant-derived cannabis medicines, synthetic cannabis medicines, and unregistered hemp-derived products.” Epidiolex is plant derived while other cannabis-derived medications (Marinol, Syndos, and Cesamet) that have been approved for nonepilepsy conditions, such as nausea associated with chemotherapy, are synthetic.

The guidance document notes several reasons to use a regulated medication instead of an unregulated product:

• Manufacturing processes can differ for unregulated products, including inconsistency in batches and unknown shelf life.
• Quality control processes, including risk of impurities, are much better with regulated products, which also have a system in place for safety recalls.
• More scientific evidence is available for regulated products.
• Safety surveillance reporting is more robust and standardized for regulated products whereas adverse event reporting is less reliable for unregulated products.
• Nonregulated products are rarely covered by insurance or other reimbursement.

Legal considerations will also vary by jurisdiction. ”Right now in the U.S. we have a confused legality where state level programs are still technically illegal at the federal level and I imagine there are some quality differences amongst dispensaries and states,” Dr. Freedman said. “Whenever there is disagreement between state and federal laws, this creates tension for our patients.” He noted, for example, that a patient using a CBD product that contains THC may, even if legal in their state, be confiscated by the Transportation Security Administration at an airport since it is not FDA approved and is not legal, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency.

The authors noted that inadequate data on long-term CBD use and data on neurodevelopmental effects of THC in children, teens, and young adults means THC products should be contraindicated for these age groups. (Epidiolex has less than 2% THC.) Drug interactions should also be considered, particularly for clobazam, CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers (including St. John’s wort), digoxin, or a mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitor.

Dr. Freedman said that most neurologists are comfortable prescribing Epidiolex since it has FDA approval while prescribing unapproved products varies more in the field. “Now that many states have compassionate use programs for medical marijuana, some neurologists do this as well,” Dr. Freedman said. Patients often ask about unregulated CBD or CBD+THC products because they’re seen as “natural and therefore better than manufactured pharmaceuticals.”

“I think this is the naturalistic fallacy at work and try to educate my patients on that since our only high-level data to show marijuana products work for epilepsy comes from a pharmaceutical company,” Dr. Freedman said. “My reasons for hesitating on compassionate use are that there is often THC, with variable amounts of concentration, and we know that THC can harm the developing pediatric brain.”
 

Dosing and adverse effects

Pediatric and adult dosing differences need to be considered, and “patient response (efficacy and toxicity) to these medications varies widely,” the authors noted. They advised getting serum transaminases (ALT and AST) and total bilirubin levels before beginning treatment. All patients should begin Epidiolex at a low dose, such as 2-5 mg/kg per day of CBD in two divided doses, the authors advise, and titrate slowly while monitoring for side effects (no more than 5 mg/kg per day per week). The current dosing range for CBD is 5-20 mg/kg per day in two divided doses, with higher rates involving more risk of adverse events.

“Note that some cannabinoids auto-inhibit their own metabolism and some have active metabolites with longer half-lives,” the authors wrote. “Therefore, dose or frequency may need to be reduced over time, unless tolerance occurs.” These doses, specific to Epidiolex, “cannot necessarily be applied to other oral CBD formulations or other types of epilepsy.” This guidance also does not apply to inhaled or transdermal routes of administration.

The most common adverse events were sleepiness – which occurred in up to 60% of trial participants – as well as diarrhea, decreases in appetite and weight, and drug interactions. Risk of hepatotoxicity means there’s a need to monitor liver function and adjust dosing for patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment. “Other short-term side effects reported only with THC-containing cannabinoid compounds include increased risk of cardiac and cerebrovascular events, anxiety and psychosis risk, dependency, and withdrawal,” the authors wrote.

Though no withdrawal syndrome has been linked to stopping CBD, the authors suggested decreasing the dose by 10% every 2 days if stopping is not urgent.

“The key points to this issue are that CBD and all marijuana products need to be safe and regulated,” Dr. Freedman said. “Any claims about them need to be backed by high-quality evidence looking at that specific product for that specific condition.”

Dr. Freedman noted the need for children to receive treatment from clinicians with expertise in their specific condition since many other evidence-based treatments exist even for patients with epilepsy syndromes that are difficult to treat, such as other medications, surgery, and specialized diets.

“We need to fix the inconsistent regulation between over-the-counter CBD products, state dispensaries, and federal laws,” Dr. Freedman added. “Any medicine being used to treat children should be held to the same FDA standard of safety and efficacy.”

Dr. Freedman and the authors had no conflicts of interest. No external funding was noted.

Differing state regulations and a paucity of research has made it difficult to develop consensus guidelines for the use of cannabinoids in treating drug-resistant epilepsy. A recent review article draws from existing clinical trials and clinical experience in New South Wales, Australia, to fill this gap with interim guidance for both pediatric and adult patients. The article was published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

The only current U.S. guidelines are from the American Academy of Neurology’s position statement on the use of medical cannabis for neurologic disorders and the American Epilepsy Society’s position statement on cannabis as a treatment for epileptic seizures. The AAN statement “highlights the current evidence, which currently only supports [Food and Drug Administration]–approved CBD [cannabidiol] (Epidiolex) for specific epilepsy syndromes,” said Daniel Freedman, DO, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin and coauthor of the AAN’s position statement.

“Rescheduling marijuana will enable researchers to study CBD, THC [tetrahydrocannabinol], and other cannabinoids in high-quality studies so that we can better understand what works and for which conditions,” said Dr. Freedman, who was not involved in the Australian guidance document. He noted that little consensus exists because little evidence exists outside the handful of trials for Epidiolex.

“There are some patients with epilepsy that can benefit from high-quality, pharmaceutical-grade CBD products,” Dr. Freedman said. “These patients need to be carefully identified by a neurologist or epileptologist and prescribed a legal, safe, quality-controlled, and FDA-regulated product.”
 

Appropriate patient populations

Drug-resistant epilepsy, defined as failure of two appropriate antiseizure medications, affects an estimated one third of people with epilepsy, the new guideline notes. Though many over-the-counter products are available at dispensaries in the 33 U.S. states that allow use of cannabis for medical purposes, Epidiolex (cannabidiol) is the only FDA-approved drug for epilepsy that contains a substance derived from cannabis and the only one for which evidence from randomized, controlled trials exists.

Dr. Freedman notes that hemp-derived CBD oils are classified differently in the United States than marijuana-derived CBD oil, including Epidiolex, and are loosely regulated supplements or food additives commonly seen, for example at gas station.

“The point I drive home to patients is that you wouldn’t get your antibiotics from a gas station, so please don’t get your seizure medication from there,” Dr. Freedman said. “Studies have been done on ‘over-the-counter’ CBD oils and shown that they have variable quality, sometimes no detectable CBD, and sometimes other chemicals added like THC.”

Studies of Epidiolex showed that cannabidiol more effectively reduced seizure frequency than placebo for pediatric patients with Dravet syndrome (42% reduction) and for pediatric and adult patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (39% reduction) or tuberous sclerosis complex (49% reduction). Efficacy was similar across dosing from 10-50 mg/kg per day, but higher doses involved higher rates of serious adverse events.

No reliable evidence in humans exists for THC or other cannabinoids in treating epilepsy.

The Australian guidance recommends limiting cannabis treatment to patients with severe drug-resistant epilepsy; a diagnosis of Dravet syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, or tuberous sclerosis complex; and previous treatment with four approved antiseizure medications and/or the ketogenic diet, epilepsy surgery, or neurostimulator. The authors provide specific criteria for each of these conditions and then address exceptional cases that may be considered outside that criteria, such as patients under 2 years old, severe epilepsy with extended or repeated hospitalization or ICU admission, or a dangerous seizure type. The review also includes a detailed list of exclusion criteria for CBD medicine use.

The authors advised a thorough consent process before prescribing any cannabinoids, including therapeutic goals and stopping criteria; the lack of evidence available on dosing, efficacy, and side effects; and the potential for dependence or withdrawal. Consent discussions should also note whether the products are unregistered and not covered by external payers (anything other than Epidiolex currently), any activity restrictions, and any implications for occupational drug screening.
 

Considerations for unapproved cannabinoids

The authors note several factors to consider if prescribing or recommending a nonapproved, nonregulated cannabis medicine, including the ”differences between registered plant-derived cannabis medicines, synthetic cannabis medicines, and unregistered hemp-derived products.” Epidiolex is plant derived while other cannabis-derived medications (Marinol, Syndos, and Cesamet) that have been approved for nonepilepsy conditions, such as nausea associated with chemotherapy, are synthetic.

The guidance document notes several reasons to use a regulated medication instead of an unregulated product:

• Manufacturing processes can differ for unregulated products, including inconsistency in batches and unknown shelf life.
• Quality control processes, including risk of impurities, are much better with regulated products, which also have a system in place for safety recalls.
• More scientific evidence is available for regulated products.
• Safety surveillance reporting is more robust and standardized for regulated products whereas adverse event reporting is less reliable for unregulated products.
• Nonregulated products are rarely covered by insurance or other reimbursement.

Legal considerations will also vary by jurisdiction. ”Right now in the U.S. we have a confused legality where state level programs are still technically illegal at the federal level and I imagine there are some quality differences amongst dispensaries and states,” Dr. Freedman said. “Whenever there is disagreement between state and federal laws, this creates tension for our patients.” He noted, for example, that a patient using a CBD product that contains THC may, even if legal in their state, be confiscated by the Transportation Security Administration at an airport since it is not FDA approved and is not legal, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency.

The authors noted that inadequate data on long-term CBD use and data on neurodevelopmental effects of THC in children, teens, and young adults means THC products should be contraindicated for these age groups. (Epidiolex has less than 2% THC.) Drug interactions should also be considered, particularly for clobazam, CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers (including St. John’s wort), digoxin, or a mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitor.

Dr. Freedman said that most neurologists are comfortable prescribing Epidiolex since it has FDA approval while prescribing unapproved products varies more in the field. “Now that many states have compassionate use programs for medical marijuana, some neurologists do this as well,” Dr. Freedman said. Patients often ask about unregulated CBD or CBD+THC products because they’re seen as “natural and therefore better than manufactured pharmaceuticals.”

“I think this is the naturalistic fallacy at work and try to educate my patients on that since our only high-level data to show marijuana products work for epilepsy comes from a pharmaceutical company,” Dr. Freedman said. “My reasons for hesitating on compassionate use are that there is often THC, with variable amounts of concentration, and we know that THC can harm the developing pediatric brain.”
 

Dosing and adverse effects

Pediatric and adult dosing differences need to be considered, and “patient response (efficacy and toxicity) to these medications varies widely,” the authors noted. They advised getting serum transaminases (ALT and AST) and total bilirubin levels before beginning treatment. All patients should begin Epidiolex at a low dose, such as 2-5 mg/kg per day of CBD in two divided doses, the authors advise, and titrate slowly while monitoring for side effects (no more than 5 mg/kg per day per week). The current dosing range for CBD is 5-20 mg/kg per day in two divided doses, with higher rates involving more risk of adverse events.

“Note that some cannabinoids auto-inhibit their own metabolism and some have active metabolites with longer half-lives,” the authors wrote. “Therefore, dose or frequency may need to be reduced over time, unless tolerance occurs.” These doses, specific to Epidiolex, “cannot necessarily be applied to other oral CBD formulations or other types of epilepsy.” This guidance also does not apply to inhaled or transdermal routes of administration.

The most common adverse events were sleepiness – which occurred in up to 60% of trial participants – as well as diarrhea, decreases in appetite and weight, and drug interactions. Risk of hepatotoxicity means there’s a need to monitor liver function and adjust dosing for patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment. “Other short-term side effects reported only with THC-containing cannabinoid compounds include increased risk of cardiac and cerebrovascular events, anxiety and psychosis risk, dependency, and withdrawal,” the authors wrote.

Though no withdrawal syndrome has been linked to stopping CBD, the authors suggested decreasing the dose by 10% every 2 days if stopping is not urgent.

“The key points to this issue are that CBD and all marijuana products need to be safe and regulated,” Dr. Freedman said. “Any claims about them need to be backed by high-quality evidence looking at that specific product for that specific condition.”

Dr. Freedman noted the need for children to receive treatment from clinicians with expertise in their specific condition since many other evidence-based treatments exist even for patients with epilepsy syndromes that are difficult to treat, such as other medications, surgery, and specialized diets.

“We need to fix the inconsistent regulation between over-the-counter CBD products, state dispensaries, and federal laws,” Dr. Freedman added. “Any medicine being used to treat children should be held to the same FDA standard of safety and efficacy.”

Dr. Freedman and the authors had no conflicts of interest. No external funding was noted.

Differing state regulations and a paucity of research has made it difficult to develop consensus guidelines for the use of cannabinoids in treating drug-resistant epilepsy. A recent review article draws from existing clinical trials and clinical experience in New South Wales, Australia, to fill this gap with interim guidance for both pediatric and adult patients. The article was published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

The only current U.S. guidelines are from the American Academy of Neurology’s position statement on the use of medical cannabis for neurologic disorders and the American Epilepsy Society’s position statement on cannabis as a treatment for epileptic seizures. The AAN statement “highlights the current evidence, which currently only supports [Food and Drug Administration]–approved CBD [cannabidiol] (Epidiolex) for specific epilepsy syndromes,” said Daniel Freedman, DO, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Texas at Austin and coauthor of the AAN’s position statement.

“Rescheduling marijuana will enable researchers to study CBD, THC [tetrahydrocannabinol], and other cannabinoids in high-quality studies so that we can better understand what works and for which conditions,” said Dr. Freedman, who was not involved in the Australian guidance document. He noted that little consensus exists because little evidence exists outside the handful of trials for Epidiolex.

“There are some patients with epilepsy that can benefit from high-quality, pharmaceutical-grade CBD products,” Dr. Freedman said. “These patients need to be carefully identified by a neurologist or epileptologist and prescribed a legal, safe, quality-controlled, and FDA-regulated product.”
 

Appropriate patient populations

Drug-resistant epilepsy, defined as failure of two appropriate antiseizure medications, affects an estimated one third of people with epilepsy, the new guideline notes. Though many over-the-counter products are available at dispensaries in the 33 U.S. states that allow use of cannabis for medical purposes, Epidiolex (cannabidiol) is the only FDA-approved drug for epilepsy that contains a substance derived from cannabis and the only one for which evidence from randomized, controlled trials exists.

Dr. Freedman notes that hemp-derived CBD oils are classified differently in the United States than marijuana-derived CBD oil, including Epidiolex, and are loosely regulated supplements or food additives commonly seen, for example at gas station.

“The point I drive home to patients is that you wouldn’t get your antibiotics from a gas station, so please don’t get your seizure medication from there,” Dr. Freedman said. “Studies have been done on ‘over-the-counter’ CBD oils and shown that they have variable quality, sometimes no detectable CBD, and sometimes other chemicals added like THC.”

Studies of Epidiolex showed that cannabidiol more effectively reduced seizure frequency than placebo for pediatric patients with Dravet syndrome (42% reduction) and for pediatric and adult patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (39% reduction) or tuberous sclerosis complex (49% reduction). Efficacy was similar across dosing from 10-50 mg/kg per day, but higher doses involved higher rates of serious adverse events.

No reliable evidence in humans exists for THC or other cannabinoids in treating epilepsy.

The Australian guidance recommends limiting cannabis treatment to patients with severe drug-resistant epilepsy; a diagnosis of Dravet syndrome, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, or tuberous sclerosis complex; and previous treatment with four approved antiseizure medications and/or the ketogenic diet, epilepsy surgery, or neurostimulator. The authors provide specific criteria for each of these conditions and then address exceptional cases that may be considered outside that criteria, such as patients under 2 years old, severe epilepsy with extended or repeated hospitalization or ICU admission, or a dangerous seizure type. The review also includes a detailed list of exclusion criteria for CBD medicine use.

The authors advised a thorough consent process before prescribing any cannabinoids, including therapeutic goals and stopping criteria; the lack of evidence available on dosing, efficacy, and side effects; and the potential for dependence or withdrawal. Consent discussions should also note whether the products are unregistered and not covered by external payers (anything other than Epidiolex currently), any activity restrictions, and any implications for occupational drug screening.
 

Considerations for unapproved cannabinoids

The authors note several factors to consider if prescribing or recommending a nonapproved, nonregulated cannabis medicine, including the ”differences between registered plant-derived cannabis medicines, synthetic cannabis medicines, and unregistered hemp-derived products.” Epidiolex is plant derived while other cannabis-derived medications (Marinol, Syndos, and Cesamet) that have been approved for nonepilepsy conditions, such as nausea associated with chemotherapy, are synthetic.

The guidance document notes several reasons to use a regulated medication instead of an unregulated product:

• Manufacturing processes can differ for unregulated products, including inconsistency in batches and unknown shelf life.
• Quality control processes, including risk of impurities, are much better with regulated products, which also have a system in place for safety recalls.
• More scientific evidence is available for regulated products.
• Safety surveillance reporting is more robust and standardized for regulated products whereas adverse event reporting is less reliable for unregulated products.
• Nonregulated products are rarely covered by insurance or other reimbursement.

Legal considerations will also vary by jurisdiction. ”Right now in the U.S. we have a confused legality where state level programs are still technically illegal at the federal level and I imagine there are some quality differences amongst dispensaries and states,” Dr. Freedman said. “Whenever there is disagreement between state and federal laws, this creates tension for our patients.” He noted, for example, that a patient using a CBD product that contains THC may, even if legal in their state, be confiscated by the Transportation Security Administration at an airport since it is not FDA approved and is not legal, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency.

The authors noted that inadequate data on long-term CBD use and data on neurodevelopmental effects of THC in children, teens, and young adults means THC products should be contraindicated for these age groups. (Epidiolex has less than 2% THC.) Drug interactions should also be considered, particularly for clobazam, CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers (including St. John’s wort), digoxin, or a mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitor.

Dr. Freedman said that most neurologists are comfortable prescribing Epidiolex since it has FDA approval while prescribing unapproved products varies more in the field. “Now that many states have compassionate use programs for medical marijuana, some neurologists do this as well,” Dr. Freedman said. Patients often ask about unregulated CBD or CBD+THC products because they’re seen as “natural and therefore better than manufactured pharmaceuticals.”

“I think this is the naturalistic fallacy at work and try to educate my patients on that since our only high-level data to show marijuana products work for epilepsy comes from a pharmaceutical company,” Dr. Freedman said. “My reasons for hesitating on compassionate use are that there is often THC, with variable amounts of concentration, and we know that THC can harm the developing pediatric brain.”
 

Dosing and adverse effects

Pediatric and adult dosing differences need to be considered, and “patient response (efficacy and toxicity) to these medications varies widely,” the authors noted. They advised getting serum transaminases (ALT and AST) and total bilirubin levels before beginning treatment. All patients should begin Epidiolex at a low dose, such as 2-5 mg/kg per day of CBD in two divided doses, the authors advise, and titrate slowly while monitoring for side effects (no more than 5 mg/kg per day per week). The current dosing range for CBD is 5-20 mg/kg per day in two divided doses, with higher rates involving more risk of adverse events.

“Note that some cannabinoids auto-inhibit their own metabolism and some have active metabolites with longer half-lives,” the authors wrote. “Therefore, dose or frequency may need to be reduced over time, unless tolerance occurs.” These doses, specific to Epidiolex, “cannot necessarily be applied to other oral CBD formulations or other types of epilepsy.” This guidance also does not apply to inhaled or transdermal routes of administration.

The most common adverse events were sleepiness – which occurred in up to 60% of trial participants – as well as diarrhea, decreases in appetite and weight, and drug interactions. Risk of hepatotoxicity means there’s a need to monitor liver function and adjust dosing for patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment. “Other short-term side effects reported only with THC-containing cannabinoid compounds include increased risk of cardiac and cerebrovascular events, anxiety and psychosis risk, dependency, and withdrawal,” the authors wrote.

Though no withdrawal syndrome has been linked to stopping CBD, the authors suggested decreasing the dose by 10% every 2 days if stopping is not urgent.

“The key points to this issue are that CBD and all marijuana products need to be safe and regulated,” Dr. Freedman said. “Any claims about them need to be backed by high-quality evidence looking at that specific product for that specific condition.”

Dr. Freedman noted the need for children to receive treatment from clinicians with expertise in their specific condition since many other evidence-based treatments exist even for patients with epilepsy syndromes that are difficult to treat, such as other medications, surgery, and specialized diets.

“We need to fix the inconsistent regulation between over-the-counter CBD products, state dispensaries, and federal laws,” Dr. Freedman added. “Any medicine being used to treat children should be held to the same FDA standard of safety and efficacy.”

Dr. Freedman and the authors had no conflicts of interest. No external funding was noted.

It’s no secret that heavy drinking is linked to potential health problems, from liver damage to a higher risk of cancer. But most people probably wouldn’t think a nightcap every evening is much of a health threat.

Now, new evidence published in Nature Communications suggests even one drink a day is linked to detectable changes in the brain, though it’s not clear whether the alcohol is causing the differences.

Previous research has found that people with alcohol use disorder have structural changes in their brains, compared with healthy people’s brains, such as reduced gray-matter and white-matter volume.

But those findings were in people with a history of heavy drinking, defined by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism as more than four drinks a day for men and more than three drinks a day for women.

The national dietary guidelines from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services advise drinking no more than two standard drinks for men and one drink for women each day. A standard drink in the United States is 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 1½ ounce of liquor.

But could even this modest amount of alcohol make a difference to our brains?

Researchers examined functional MRI brain scans from 36,678 healthy adults, aged 40-69 years, in the United Kingdom and compared those findings with their weekly alcohol consumption, adjusting for differences in age, sex, height, social and economic status, and country of residence, among other things.

In line with past studies, the researchers found that, as a person drank more alcohol, their gray-matter and white-matter volume decreased, getting worse the more drinks they had in a week.

But the researchers also noted that they could tell the difference between brain images of people who never drank alcohol and those who had just one or two drinks a day.

Going from 1 unit of alcohol to 2 – which in the United Kingdom means a full pint of beer or standard glass of wine – was linked to changes similar to 2 years of aging in the brain.

Other than comparing the changes with aging, it’s not yet clear what the findings mean until the scientists do more research, including looking at the genes of the people who took part in the study.

The study also has several drawbacks. The people who were studied are all middle-aged Europeans, so findings might be different in younger people or those with different ancestries. People also self-reported how much alcohol they drank for the past year, which they might not remember correctly or which might be different from previous years, including past years of heavy drinking.

And since the researchers compared drinking habits with brain imaging at one point in time, it’s not possible to say whether alcohol is actually causing the brain differences they saw.

Still, the findings raise the question of whether national guidelines should be revisited, and whether it’s better to cut that evening drink to a half-glass of wine instead.

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

It’s no secret that heavy drinking is linked to potential health problems, from liver damage to a higher risk of cancer. But most people probably wouldn’t think a nightcap every evening is much of a health threat.

Now, new evidence published in Nature Communications suggests even one drink a day is linked to detectable changes in the brain, though it’s not clear whether the alcohol is causing the differences.

Previous research has found that people with alcohol use disorder have structural changes in their brains, compared with healthy people’s brains, such as reduced gray-matter and white-matter volume.

But those findings were in people with a history of heavy drinking, defined by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism as more than four drinks a day for men and more than three drinks a day for women.

The national dietary guidelines from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services advise drinking no more than two standard drinks for men and one drink for women each day. A standard drink in the United States is 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 1½ ounce of liquor.

But could even this modest amount of alcohol make a difference to our brains?

Researchers examined functional MRI brain scans from 36,678 healthy adults, aged 40-69 years, in the United Kingdom and compared those findings with their weekly alcohol consumption, adjusting for differences in age, sex, height, social and economic status, and country of residence, among other things.

In line with past studies, the researchers found that, as a person drank more alcohol, their gray-matter and white-matter volume decreased, getting worse the more drinks they had in a week.

But the researchers also noted that they could tell the difference between brain images of people who never drank alcohol and those who had just one or two drinks a day.

Going from 1 unit of alcohol to 2 – which in the United Kingdom means a full pint of beer or standard glass of wine – was linked to changes similar to 2 years of aging in the brain.

Other than comparing the changes with aging, it’s not yet clear what the findings mean until the scientists do more research, including looking at the genes of the people who took part in the study.

The study also has several drawbacks. The people who were studied are all middle-aged Europeans, so findings might be different in younger people or those with different ancestries. People also self-reported how much alcohol they drank for the past year, which they might not remember correctly or which might be different from previous years, including past years of heavy drinking.

And since the researchers compared drinking habits with brain imaging at one point in time, it’s not possible to say whether alcohol is actually causing the brain differences they saw.

Still, the findings raise the question of whether national guidelines should be revisited, and whether it’s better to cut that evening drink to a half-glass of wine instead.

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

It’s no secret that heavy drinking is linked to potential health problems, from liver damage to a higher risk of cancer. But most people probably wouldn’t think a nightcap every evening is much of a health threat.

Now, new evidence published in Nature Communications suggests even one drink a day is linked to detectable changes in the brain, though it’s not clear whether the alcohol is causing the differences.

Previous research has found that people with alcohol use disorder have structural changes in their brains, compared with healthy people’s brains, such as reduced gray-matter and white-matter volume.

But those findings were in people with a history of heavy drinking, defined by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism as more than four drinks a day for men and more than three drinks a day for women.

The national dietary guidelines from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services advise drinking no more than two standard drinks for men and one drink for women each day. A standard drink in the United States is 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 1½ ounce of liquor.

But could even this modest amount of alcohol make a difference to our brains?

Researchers examined functional MRI brain scans from 36,678 healthy adults, aged 40-69 years, in the United Kingdom and compared those findings with their weekly alcohol consumption, adjusting for differences in age, sex, height, social and economic status, and country of residence, among other things.

In line with past studies, the researchers found that, as a person drank more alcohol, their gray-matter and white-matter volume decreased, getting worse the more drinks they had in a week.

But the researchers also noted that they could tell the difference between brain images of people who never drank alcohol and those who had just one or two drinks a day.

Going from 1 unit of alcohol to 2 – which in the United Kingdom means a full pint of beer or standard glass of wine – was linked to changes similar to 2 years of aging in the brain.

Other than comparing the changes with aging, it’s not yet clear what the findings mean until the scientists do more research, including looking at the genes of the people who took part in the study.

The study also has several drawbacks. The people who were studied are all middle-aged Europeans, so findings might be different in younger people or those with different ancestries. People also self-reported how much alcohol they drank for the past year, which they might not remember correctly or which might be different from previous years, including past years of heavy drinking.

And since the researchers compared drinking habits with brain imaging at one point in time, it’s not possible to say whether alcohol is actually causing the brain differences they saw.

Still, the findings raise the question of whether national guidelines should be revisited, and whether it’s better to cut that evening drink to a half-glass of wine instead.

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

Treatment of systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA) should emphasize early use of conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), compared with the previous reliance on NSAIDs and glucocorticoids, according to new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology. The recently published 2021 guidelines focus on therapeutic approaches for oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and sJIA.

“Systemic JIA should be treated early with biologics to rapidly bring disease under control and to avoid long-term use of glucocorticoids,” Karen Onel, MD, chief of the division of pediatric rheumatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and lead author of the guidelines, told this news organization. “Unfortunately, biologics can and are frequently denied for first-line use. For this reason, the guidelines are critically important as they demonstrate that first-line use of biologics are standard of care for the treatment of sJIA.”

The new publication is the second part of the ACR’s process to update JIA guidelines that began in 2017 and complements the release in 2019 of guidelines on the management of nonsystemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, and enthesitis, as well as a separate guidance on JIA-associated uveitis. The new guidelines include a second publication focused on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging. Both sets of guidelines grew out of a 15-member panel that included young adults with JIA and caregivers of children with JIA, and which required at least 70% agreement on recommendations.

“Though the scope of the two guidelines differed, one thing they had in common is the recognition of the importance of shared decision-making with the patient/caregiver,” Dr. Onel said. “Not every decision will be appropriate for every patient, which is why it was so instrumental to receive input from both patients and caregivers when creating these recommendations.”
 

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis have similar recommendations, beginning with NSAIDs conditionally recommended and intra-articular glucocorticoids (IAGCs) strongly recommended as part of initial therapy. For oligoarticular arthritis, the guidelines specifically include a strong recommendation of triamcinolone hexacetonide as the preferred agent; no preferred agent is recommended for TMJ arthritis.

“The one thing that the panel was unanimous about was the use of triamcinolone hexacetonide for intra-articular steroid injections in oligoarticular kids,” Susan Shenoi, MBBS, MS, an associate professor and clinical director of pediatric rheumatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital and Research Center, said in an interview. “Triamcinolone hexacetonide has not been available recently, and through advocacy efforts, there is now a pathway to get that medication,” added Dr. Shenoi, a coauthor on the guidelines.

Dr. Onel said that “triamcinolone hexacetonide has been shown to be superior to alternative injectable glucocorticoids in achieving and maintaining remission in children with JIA,” but its unavailability meant physicians had to consider less effective, more potent, or more costly alternatives.” To address the shortage, “the FDA allowed the importation of one particular formulation of triamcinolone hexacetonide [Hexatrione 2%] specifically for joint injections in patients with JIA.”

The guidelines conditionally recommend against oral glucocorticoids for initial therapy for both oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis. In fact, throughout the guidelines it’s clear that the authors emphasize using steroids as little as possible, Dr. Shenoi said.

“Steroids are great anti-inflammatories, but in kids we worry about the long-term effects on growth and metabolism, and now we have many more DMARDs available,” Dr. Shenoi said.

The guidelines strongly recommend conventional synthetic DMARDs for patients with either of these diseases who cannot tolerate or do not respond to NSAIDs or IAGCs, with methotrexate conditionally recommended over leflunomide (Arava) for TMJ and over leflunomide, sulfasalazine (Azulfidine, Sulfazine), and hydroxychloroquine, respectively, for oligoarticular arthritis.

“NSAIDs remain widely used despite evidence supporting early use of DMARDs,” Dr. Onel said. “NSAIDs are readily available and familiar; however, they will not prevent disease progression. These guidelines should encourage short courses of NSAIDs only.”

If patients do not respond to or cannot tolerate NSAIDs, IAGCs, and at least one conventional DMARD, the guidelines strongly recommend a biologic DMARD for oligoarticular arthritis and conditionally recommend one for TMJ arthritis, without any preferences to the specific agent.

The guidelines also advise using validated disease activity measures to guide treatment decisions.

“The most important thing when you’re looking at these patients is to determine, do they have active disease or not?” Dr. Shenoi said. “If they have active disease, then you really want to step up therapy.” Using the relatively new concept of treat-to-target, Dr. Shenoi added that a crucial part of shared decision-making with the family is identifying the most appropriate target for that family “and then really trying hard to achieve that target.”

The guidelines also list risk factors for poor outcome that can be used to guide treatment decisions.

“Specific involvement of key joints, such as TMJ, wrist, sacroiliac, hip, and ankle, and other features were considered reasonable justification for early escalation of therapy,” Dr. Onel said. Other features included presence of erosive disease or enthesitis, delay in diagnosis, elevated levels of inflammation markers, and symmetric disease. “Moving quickly may be needed for a patient who is rapidly worsening, while moving slower may be appropriate for somebody who has improved substantially, but not fully.”

Systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome

For systemic JIA without macrophage activation syndrome (MAS), the guidelines similarly advise against oral glucocorticoids as initial monotherapy while conditionally recommending NSAIDs for initial monotherapy. Where the guidelines differ most from those for oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis is in progression of DMARD use, with a strong recommendation against conventional synthetic DMARDs as an initial monotherapy and interleukin-1 and IL-6 inhibitors conditionally recommended for initial monotherapy.

For patients who don’t adequately respond to NSAIDs or glucocorticoids, IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors are strongly recommended over a single or combination of conventional DMARDs. Residual arthritis or an incomplete response to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors should lead next to biologic or conventional DMARDs instead of long-term glucocorticoids.

For patients with MAS, the guidelines conditionally recommend IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors over calcineurin inhibitor monotherapy to reach inactive disease and MAS resolution, with glucocorticoids conditionally recommended in initial treatment. Again, however, for patients with incomplete responses to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors or with residual arthritis, the guidelines advise biologic or conventional DMARDs over long-term glucocorticoids.

In patients with sJIA with or without a history of MAS who have inactive disease, practitioners should taper and discontinue glucocorticoids (a strong recommendation). A conditional recommendation for tapering and discontinuing biologic DMARDs follows attainment of inactive disease.

Beyond pharmacology

Although many of the nonpharmacologic recommendations did not have strong evidence based on assessment with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, consensus was more often the case than not, Dr. Onel said, such as with vaccination.

“There was strong support for the use of immunizations in children with JIA and specific guidance for children with JIA receiving immunosuppression, not on immunosuppression, and children who are underimmunized or unimmunized,” she said. “Although the supportive evidence was very low as per GRADE, panel members were strongly in favor [of immunizations], given risk of infection for immunosuppressed children as well as the preponderance of evidence in similar disease states, such as IBD [inflammatory bowel disease].”

An area with less consensus was whether to check antibody titers for vaccine-preventable childhood infections before beginning immunosuppressive medication, but more panelists opposed the practice than supported it, Dr. Onel said.

“Some panelists felt that the information might be useful for risk management in case of an outbreak or exposure,” she said. “Most believed that screening a fully immunized child was of low benefit and might delay treatment and incur unnecessary cost.”

The process of developing the documents also reveals where the biggest gaps are in research. 

“One of the things that we should strive for in the future is really to do more systematic studies so we have better quality of evidence going forward,” Dr. Shenoi said. Overall, however, the guidelines also reveal the progress made in treatment of JIA.

“We now know some of the key cytokines that are involved in the disease pathogenesis, and we have effective therapies for some of these pathways,” Dr. Shenoi said. “We used to use a lot more toxic medication for systemic JIA, and in past decades, these patients used to be on steroids forever. Now we have targeted therapies, and we have some patients who don’t ever need steroids because people are moving toward targeted therapies and having good results. That’s a huge step forward in the field.”

The research was funded by the ACR. Dr. Shenoi has been a consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Onel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment of systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA) should emphasize early use of conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), compared with the previous reliance on NSAIDs and glucocorticoids, according to new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology. The recently published 2021 guidelines focus on therapeutic approaches for oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and sJIA.

“Systemic JIA should be treated early with biologics to rapidly bring disease under control and to avoid long-term use of glucocorticoids,” Karen Onel, MD, chief of the division of pediatric rheumatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and lead author of the guidelines, told this news organization. “Unfortunately, biologics can and are frequently denied for first-line use. For this reason, the guidelines are critically important as they demonstrate that first-line use of biologics are standard of care for the treatment of sJIA.”

The new publication is the second part of the ACR’s process to update JIA guidelines that began in 2017 and complements the release in 2019 of guidelines on the management of nonsystemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, and enthesitis, as well as a separate guidance on JIA-associated uveitis. The new guidelines include a second publication focused on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging. Both sets of guidelines grew out of a 15-member panel that included young adults with JIA and caregivers of children with JIA, and which required at least 70% agreement on recommendations.

“Though the scope of the two guidelines differed, one thing they had in common is the recognition of the importance of shared decision-making with the patient/caregiver,” Dr. Onel said. “Not every decision will be appropriate for every patient, which is why it was so instrumental to receive input from both patients and caregivers when creating these recommendations.”
 

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis have similar recommendations, beginning with NSAIDs conditionally recommended and intra-articular glucocorticoids (IAGCs) strongly recommended as part of initial therapy. For oligoarticular arthritis, the guidelines specifically include a strong recommendation of triamcinolone hexacetonide as the preferred agent; no preferred agent is recommended for TMJ arthritis.

“The one thing that the panel was unanimous about was the use of triamcinolone hexacetonide for intra-articular steroid injections in oligoarticular kids,” Susan Shenoi, MBBS, MS, an associate professor and clinical director of pediatric rheumatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital and Research Center, said in an interview. “Triamcinolone hexacetonide has not been available recently, and through advocacy efforts, there is now a pathway to get that medication,” added Dr. Shenoi, a coauthor on the guidelines.

Dr. Onel said that “triamcinolone hexacetonide has been shown to be superior to alternative injectable glucocorticoids in achieving and maintaining remission in children with JIA,” but its unavailability meant physicians had to consider less effective, more potent, or more costly alternatives.” To address the shortage, “the FDA allowed the importation of one particular formulation of triamcinolone hexacetonide [Hexatrione 2%] specifically for joint injections in patients with JIA.”

The guidelines conditionally recommend against oral glucocorticoids for initial therapy for both oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis. In fact, throughout the guidelines it’s clear that the authors emphasize using steroids as little as possible, Dr. Shenoi said.

“Steroids are great anti-inflammatories, but in kids we worry about the long-term effects on growth and metabolism, and now we have many more DMARDs available,” Dr. Shenoi said.

The guidelines strongly recommend conventional synthetic DMARDs for patients with either of these diseases who cannot tolerate or do not respond to NSAIDs or IAGCs, with methotrexate conditionally recommended over leflunomide (Arava) for TMJ and over leflunomide, sulfasalazine (Azulfidine, Sulfazine), and hydroxychloroquine, respectively, for oligoarticular arthritis.

“NSAIDs remain widely used despite evidence supporting early use of DMARDs,” Dr. Onel said. “NSAIDs are readily available and familiar; however, they will not prevent disease progression. These guidelines should encourage short courses of NSAIDs only.”

If patients do not respond to or cannot tolerate NSAIDs, IAGCs, and at least one conventional DMARD, the guidelines strongly recommend a biologic DMARD for oligoarticular arthritis and conditionally recommend one for TMJ arthritis, without any preferences to the specific agent.

The guidelines also advise using validated disease activity measures to guide treatment decisions.

“The most important thing when you’re looking at these patients is to determine, do they have active disease or not?” Dr. Shenoi said. “If they have active disease, then you really want to step up therapy.” Using the relatively new concept of treat-to-target, Dr. Shenoi added that a crucial part of shared decision-making with the family is identifying the most appropriate target for that family “and then really trying hard to achieve that target.”

The guidelines also list risk factors for poor outcome that can be used to guide treatment decisions.

“Specific involvement of key joints, such as TMJ, wrist, sacroiliac, hip, and ankle, and other features were considered reasonable justification for early escalation of therapy,” Dr. Onel said. Other features included presence of erosive disease or enthesitis, delay in diagnosis, elevated levels of inflammation markers, and symmetric disease. “Moving quickly may be needed for a patient who is rapidly worsening, while moving slower may be appropriate for somebody who has improved substantially, but not fully.”

Systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome

For systemic JIA without macrophage activation syndrome (MAS), the guidelines similarly advise against oral glucocorticoids as initial monotherapy while conditionally recommending NSAIDs for initial monotherapy. Where the guidelines differ most from those for oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis is in progression of DMARD use, with a strong recommendation against conventional synthetic DMARDs as an initial monotherapy and interleukin-1 and IL-6 inhibitors conditionally recommended for initial monotherapy.

For patients who don’t adequately respond to NSAIDs or glucocorticoids, IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors are strongly recommended over a single or combination of conventional DMARDs. Residual arthritis or an incomplete response to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors should lead next to biologic or conventional DMARDs instead of long-term glucocorticoids.

For patients with MAS, the guidelines conditionally recommend IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors over calcineurin inhibitor monotherapy to reach inactive disease and MAS resolution, with glucocorticoids conditionally recommended in initial treatment. Again, however, for patients with incomplete responses to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors or with residual arthritis, the guidelines advise biologic or conventional DMARDs over long-term glucocorticoids.

In patients with sJIA with or without a history of MAS who have inactive disease, practitioners should taper and discontinue glucocorticoids (a strong recommendation). A conditional recommendation for tapering and discontinuing biologic DMARDs follows attainment of inactive disease.

Beyond pharmacology

Although many of the nonpharmacologic recommendations did not have strong evidence based on assessment with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, consensus was more often the case than not, Dr. Onel said, such as with vaccination.

“There was strong support for the use of immunizations in children with JIA and specific guidance for children with JIA receiving immunosuppression, not on immunosuppression, and children who are underimmunized or unimmunized,” she said. “Although the supportive evidence was very low as per GRADE, panel members were strongly in favor [of immunizations], given risk of infection for immunosuppressed children as well as the preponderance of evidence in similar disease states, such as IBD [inflammatory bowel disease].”

An area with less consensus was whether to check antibody titers for vaccine-preventable childhood infections before beginning immunosuppressive medication, but more panelists opposed the practice than supported it, Dr. Onel said.

“Some panelists felt that the information might be useful for risk management in case of an outbreak or exposure,” she said. “Most believed that screening a fully immunized child was of low benefit and might delay treatment and incur unnecessary cost.”

The process of developing the documents also reveals where the biggest gaps are in research. 

“One of the things that we should strive for in the future is really to do more systematic studies so we have better quality of evidence going forward,” Dr. Shenoi said. Overall, however, the guidelines also reveal the progress made in treatment of JIA.

“We now know some of the key cytokines that are involved in the disease pathogenesis, and we have effective therapies for some of these pathways,” Dr. Shenoi said. “We used to use a lot more toxic medication for systemic JIA, and in past decades, these patients used to be on steroids forever. Now we have targeted therapies, and we have some patients who don’t ever need steroids because people are moving toward targeted therapies and having good results. That’s a huge step forward in the field.”

The research was funded by the ACR. Dr. Shenoi has been a consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Onel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment of systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA) should emphasize early use of conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), compared with the previous reliance on NSAIDs and glucocorticoids, according to new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology. The recently published 2021 guidelines focus on therapeutic approaches for oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and sJIA.

“Systemic JIA should be treated early with biologics to rapidly bring disease under control and to avoid long-term use of glucocorticoids,” Karen Onel, MD, chief of the division of pediatric rheumatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and lead author of the guidelines, told this news organization. “Unfortunately, biologics can and are frequently denied for first-line use. For this reason, the guidelines are critically important as they demonstrate that first-line use of biologics are standard of care for the treatment of sJIA.”

The new publication is the second part of the ACR’s process to update JIA guidelines that began in 2017 and complements the release in 2019 of guidelines on the management of nonsystemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, and enthesitis, as well as a separate guidance on JIA-associated uveitis. The new guidelines include a second publication focused on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging. Both sets of guidelines grew out of a 15-member panel that included young adults with JIA and caregivers of children with JIA, and which required at least 70% agreement on recommendations.

“Though the scope of the two guidelines differed, one thing they had in common is the recognition of the importance of shared decision-making with the patient/caregiver,” Dr. Onel said. “Not every decision will be appropriate for every patient, which is why it was so instrumental to receive input from both patients and caregivers when creating these recommendations.”
 

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis

Oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis have similar recommendations, beginning with NSAIDs conditionally recommended and intra-articular glucocorticoids (IAGCs) strongly recommended as part of initial therapy. For oligoarticular arthritis, the guidelines specifically include a strong recommendation of triamcinolone hexacetonide as the preferred agent; no preferred agent is recommended for TMJ arthritis.

“The one thing that the panel was unanimous about was the use of triamcinolone hexacetonide for intra-articular steroid injections in oligoarticular kids,” Susan Shenoi, MBBS, MS, an associate professor and clinical director of pediatric rheumatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital and Research Center, said in an interview. “Triamcinolone hexacetonide has not been available recently, and through advocacy efforts, there is now a pathway to get that medication,” added Dr. Shenoi, a coauthor on the guidelines.

Dr. Onel said that “triamcinolone hexacetonide has been shown to be superior to alternative injectable glucocorticoids in achieving and maintaining remission in children with JIA,” but its unavailability meant physicians had to consider less effective, more potent, or more costly alternatives.” To address the shortage, “the FDA allowed the importation of one particular formulation of triamcinolone hexacetonide [Hexatrione 2%] specifically for joint injections in patients with JIA.”

The guidelines conditionally recommend against oral glucocorticoids for initial therapy for both oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis. In fact, throughout the guidelines it’s clear that the authors emphasize using steroids as little as possible, Dr. Shenoi said.

“Steroids are great anti-inflammatories, but in kids we worry about the long-term effects on growth and metabolism, and now we have many more DMARDs available,” Dr. Shenoi said.

The guidelines strongly recommend conventional synthetic DMARDs for patients with either of these diseases who cannot tolerate or do not respond to NSAIDs or IAGCs, with methotrexate conditionally recommended over leflunomide (Arava) for TMJ and over leflunomide, sulfasalazine (Azulfidine, Sulfazine), and hydroxychloroquine, respectively, for oligoarticular arthritis.

“NSAIDs remain widely used despite evidence supporting early use of DMARDs,” Dr. Onel said. “NSAIDs are readily available and familiar; however, they will not prevent disease progression. These guidelines should encourage short courses of NSAIDs only.”

If patients do not respond to or cannot tolerate NSAIDs, IAGCs, and at least one conventional DMARD, the guidelines strongly recommend a biologic DMARD for oligoarticular arthritis and conditionally recommend one for TMJ arthritis, without any preferences to the specific agent.

The guidelines also advise using validated disease activity measures to guide treatment decisions.

“The most important thing when you’re looking at these patients is to determine, do they have active disease or not?” Dr. Shenoi said. “If they have active disease, then you really want to step up therapy.” Using the relatively new concept of treat-to-target, Dr. Shenoi added that a crucial part of shared decision-making with the family is identifying the most appropriate target for that family “and then really trying hard to achieve that target.”

The guidelines also list risk factors for poor outcome that can be used to guide treatment decisions.

“Specific involvement of key joints, such as TMJ, wrist, sacroiliac, hip, and ankle, and other features were considered reasonable justification for early escalation of therapy,” Dr. Onel said. Other features included presence of erosive disease or enthesitis, delay in diagnosis, elevated levels of inflammation markers, and symmetric disease. “Moving quickly may be needed for a patient who is rapidly worsening, while moving slower may be appropriate for somebody who has improved substantially, but not fully.”

Systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome

For systemic JIA without macrophage activation syndrome (MAS), the guidelines similarly advise against oral glucocorticoids as initial monotherapy while conditionally recommending NSAIDs for initial monotherapy. Where the guidelines differ most from those for oligoarticular and TMJ arthritis is in progression of DMARD use, with a strong recommendation against conventional synthetic DMARDs as an initial monotherapy and interleukin-1 and IL-6 inhibitors conditionally recommended for initial monotherapy.

For patients who don’t adequately respond to NSAIDs or glucocorticoids, IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors are strongly recommended over a single or combination of conventional DMARDs. Residual arthritis or an incomplete response to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors should lead next to biologic or conventional DMARDs instead of long-term glucocorticoids.

For patients with MAS, the guidelines conditionally recommend IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors over calcineurin inhibitor monotherapy to reach inactive disease and MAS resolution, with glucocorticoids conditionally recommended in initial treatment. Again, however, for patients with incomplete responses to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors or with residual arthritis, the guidelines advise biologic or conventional DMARDs over long-term glucocorticoids.

In patients with sJIA with or without a history of MAS who have inactive disease, practitioners should taper and discontinue glucocorticoids (a strong recommendation). A conditional recommendation for tapering and discontinuing biologic DMARDs follows attainment of inactive disease.

Beyond pharmacology

Although many of the nonpharmacologic recommendations did not have strong evidence based on assessment with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, consensus was more often the case than not, Dr. Onel said, such as with vaccination.

“There was strong support for the use of immunizations in children with JIA and specific guidance for children with JIA receiving immunosuppression, not on immunosuppression, and children who are underimmunized or unimmunized,” she said. “Although the supportive evidence was very low as per GRADE, panel members were strongly in favor [of immunizations], given risk of infection for immunosuppressed children as well as the preponderance of evidence in similar disease states, such as IBD [inflammatory bowel disease].”

An area with less consensus was whether to check antibody titers for vaccine-preventable childhood infections before beginning immunosuppressive medication, but more panelists opposed the practice than supported it, Dr. Onel said.

“Some panelists felt that the information might be useful for risk management in case of an outbreak or exposure,” she said. “Most believed that screening a fully immunized child was of low benefit and might delay treatment and incur unnecessary cost.”

The process of developing the documents also reveals where the biggest gaps are in research. 

“One of the things that we should strive for in the future is really to do more systematic studies so we have better quality of evidence going forward,” Dr. Shenoi said. Overall, however, the guidelines also reveal the progress made in treatment of JIA.

“We now know some of the key cytokines that are involved in the disease pathogenesis, and we have effective therapies for some of these pathways,” Dr. Shenoi said. “We used to use a lot more toxic medication for systemic JIA, and in past decades, these patients used to be on steroids forever. Now we have targeted therapies, and we have some patients who don’t ever need steroids because people are moving toward targeted therapies and having good results. That’s a huge step forward in the field.”

The research was funded by the ACR. Dr. Shenoi has been a consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Onel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin increased in 2020, driven particularly by rates in counties with the highest proportion of Republican votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, according to a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that U.S. prescribing of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been influenced by political affiliation,” wrote Michael L. Barnett, MD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues.
 

The researchers used data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse to analyze commercial and Medicare Advantage medical claims from January 2019 through December 2020 for more than 18.5 million adults living in counties with at least 50 enrollees.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment on March 28, 2020, but the agency revoked the EUA 3 months later on June 15. Ivermectin never received an EUA for COVID treatment, but an in vitro study published April 3, 2020 claimed it had an antiviral effect.

The National Institutes of Health recommended against using ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment on Aug. 1, 2020, but a few months later, on Nov. 13, a flawed clinical trial – later retracted – claimed ivermectin was 90% effective in treating COVID-19. Despite the lack of evidence for ivermectin’s efficacy, a Senate committee meeting on Dec. 8, 2020, included testimony from a physician who promoted its use.

Mario Olaya/Pixabay

In comparing ivermectin and HCQ prescription rates with counties’ political composition, the researchers adjusted their findings to account for differences in the counties’ racial composition and COVID-19 incidence as well as enrollees’ age, sex, insurance type, income, comorbidity burden, and home in a rural or urban area.

The results showed an average of 20 new HCQ prescriptions per 100,000 enrollees in 2019, but 2020 saw a sharp increase and drop in new HCQ prescriptions in March-April 2020, independent of counties’ breakdown of political affiliation.

“However, after June 2020, coinciding with the revocation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine, prescribing volume was significantly higher in the highest vs. lowest Republican vote share counties,” the authors report. The gradual increase from June through December 2020 averaged to 42 new prescriptions per 100,000, a 146% increase over 2019 rates that was driven largely by the 25% of counties with the highest proportion of Republican voters.

Similarly, rates of new ivermectin prescriptions in December 2020 were more than nine times higher in counties with the highest Republican vote share, compared with new prescriptions throughout 2019. The researchers found no differences in new prescriptions for methotrexate or albendazole in 2020 based on counties’ proportion of Republican votes.

Since the study is an ecological, observational one, it cannot show causation or shed light on what role patients, physicians, or other factors might have played in prescribing patterns. Nevertheless, the authors noted the potentially negative implications of their findings.

“Because political affiliation should not be a factor in clinical treatment decisions, our findings raise concerns for public trust in a nonpartisan health care system,” the authors write.

Coauthor Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, reported personal fees from Sanofi-Aventis, and coauthor Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, reported personal fees from Bioverativ, Merck, Janssen, Edwards Lifesciences, Novartis, Amgen, Eisai, Otsuka, Vertex, Celgene, Sanofi-Aventis, Precision Health Economics (now PRECISIONheor), Analysis Group, and Doubleday and hosting the podcast Freakonomics, M.D. The other coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. No external funding source was noted.

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

New prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin increased in 2020, driven particularly by rates in counties with the highest proportion of Republican votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, according to a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that U.S. prescribing of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been influenced by political affiliation,” wrote Michael L. Barnett, MD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues.
 

The researchers used data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse to analyze commercial and Medicare Advantage medical claims from January 2019 through December 2020 for more than 18.5 million adults living in counties with at least 50 enrollees.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment on March 28, 2020, but the agency revoked the EUA 3 months later on June 15. Ivermectin never received an EUA for COVID treatment, but an in vitro study published April 3, 2020 claimed it had an antiviral effect.

The National Institutes of Health recommended against using ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment on Aug. 1, 2020, but a few months later, on Nov. 13, a flawed clinical trial – later retracted – claimed ivermectin was 90% effective in treating COVID-19. Despite the lack of evidence for ivermectin’s efficacy, a Senate committee meeting on Dec. 8, 2020, included testimony from a physician who promoted its use.

Mario Olaya/Pixabay

In comparing ivermectin and HCQ prescription rates with counties’ political composition, the researchers adjusted their findings to account for differences in the counties’ racial composition and COVID-19 incidence as well as enrollees’ age, sex, insurance type, income, comorbidity burden, and home in a rural or urban area.

The results showed an average of 20 new HCQ prescriptions per 100,000 enrollees in 2019, but 2020 saw a sharp increase and drop in new HCQ prescriptions in March-April 2020, independent of counties’ breakdown of political affiliation.

“However, after June 2020, coinciding with the revocation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine, prescribing volume was significantly higher in the highest vs. lowest Republican vote share counties,” the authors report. The gradual increase from June through December 2020 averaged to 42 new prescriptions per 100,000, a 146% increase over 2019 rates that was driven largely by the 25% of counties with the highest proportion of Republican voters.

Similarly, rates of new ivermectin prescriptions in December 2020 were more than nine times higher in counties with the highest Republican vote share, compared with new prescriptions throughout 2019. The researchers found no differences in new prescriptions for methotrexate or albendazole in 2020 based on counties’ proportion of Republican votes.

Since the study is an ecological, observational one, it cannot show causation or shed light on what role patients, physicians, or other factors might have played in prescribing patterns. Nevertheless, the authors noted the potentially negative implications of their findings.

“Because political affiliation should not be a factor in clinical treatment decisions, our findings raise concerns for public trust in a nonpartisan health care system,” the authors write.

Coauthor Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, reported personal fees from Sanofi-Aventis, and coauthor Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, reported personal fees from Bioverativ, Merck, Janssen, Edwards Lifesciences, Novartis, Amgen, Eisai, Otsuka, Vertex, Celgene, Sanofi-Aventis, Precision Health Economics (now PRECISIONheor), Analysis Group, and Doubleday and hosting the podcast Freakonomics, M.D. The other coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. No external funding source was noted.

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

New prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin increased in 2020, driven particularly by rates in counties with the highest proportion of Republican votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, according to a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that U.S. prescribing of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been influenced by political affiliation,” wrote Michael L. Barnett, MD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues.
 

The researchers used data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse to analyze commercial and Medicare Advantage medical claims from January 2019 through December 2020 for more than 18.5 million adults living in counties with at least 50 enrollees.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for HCQ as a COVID-19 treatment on March 28, 2020, but the agency revoked the EUA 3 months later on June 15. Ivermectin never received an EUA for COVID treatment, but an in vitro study published April 3, 2020 claimed it had an antiviral effect.

The National Institutes of Health recommended against using ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment on Aug. 1, 2020, but a few months later, on Nov. 13, a flawed clinical trial – later retracted – claimed ivermectin was 90% effective in treating COVID-19. Despite the lack of evidence for ivermectin’s efficacy, a Senate committee meeting on Dec. 8, 2020, included testimony from a physician who promoted its use.

Mario Olaya/Pixabay

In comparing ivermectin and HCQ prescription rates with counties’ political composition, the researchers adjusted their findings to account for differences in the counties’ racial composition and COVID-19 incidence as well as enrollees’ age, sex, insurance type, income, comorbidity burden, and home in a rural or urban area.

The results showed an average of 20 new HCQ prescriptions per 100,000 enrollees in 2019, but 2020 saw a sharp increase and drop in new HCQ prescriptions in March-April 2020, independent of counties’ breakdown of political affiliation.

“However, after June 2020, coinciding with the revocation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine, prescribing volume was significantly higher in the highest vs. lowest Republican vote share counties,” the authors report. The gradual increase from June through December 2020 averaged to 42 new prescriptions per 100,000, a 146% increase over 2019 rates that was driven largely by the 25% of counties with the highest proportion of Republican voters.

Similarly, rates of new ivermectin prescriptions in December 2020 were more than nine times higher in counties with the highest Republican vote share, compared with new prescriptions throughout 2019. The researchers found no differences in new prescriptions for methotrexate or albendazole in 2020 based on counties’ proportion of Republican votes.

Since the study is an ecological, observational one, it cannot show causation or shed light on what role patients, physicians, or other factors might have played in prescribing patterns. Nevertheless, the authors noted the potentially negative implications of their findings.

“Because political affiliation should not be a factor in clinical treatment decisions, our findings raise concerns for public trust in a nonpartisan health care system,” the authors write.

Coauthor Ateev Mehrotra, MD, MPH, reported personal fees from Sanofi-Aventis, and coauthor Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, reported personal fees from Bioverativ, Merck, Janssen, Edwards Lifesciences, Novartis, Amgen, Eisai, Otsuka, Vertex, Celgene, Sanofi-Aventis, Precision Health Economics (now PRECISIONheor), Analysis Group, and Doubleday and hosting the podcast Freakonomics, M.D. The other coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. No external funding source was noted.

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

Group prenatal care did not reduce preterm birth among low-income patients compared to patients receiving individual prenatal care, but the different care models did shrink racial disparities in low-birth-weight and preterm births, according to a study presented Feb. 3 at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Patients who attended more group prenatal care visits also had better outcomes, reported Amy Crockett, MD, professor of ob.gyn. and director of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellowship Program at the University of South Carolina in Greenville.

Though the results did not show group prenatal care to be the “silver bullet” they might have hoped for in reducing preterm birth and low birth weight among Black women, the study did show group prenatal care to have some clinical effect, Dr. Crockett suggested.

Ilina Pluym, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, said that preterm birth and low birth weight are complex problems that cannot be solved by a single fix.

“In terms of the racial disparities, it is difficult to prove that 9 months of good access to prenatal care will undo the years of limited health care and life stressors that, as a whole, possibly contribute more to the overall risk profile of the patient,” Dr. Pluym said. “But as providers, we want to intervene and help in the portion that we can, and optimizing prenatal care is one tangible thing we can try.”

The racial disparities that exist in preterm birth, low birth weight, and infant and maternal mortality are not caused by biologic or genetic factors, Dr. Crockett told attendees.

”Rather, they are the result of long-standing systemic racism and discrimination deeply embedded in the culture of the United States,” she said. “To achieve racial equity, we need reform at the societal level.” But she noted that it might be possible for individual practices to play a role as well, which led her to design a study comparing outcomes from group versus individual prenatal care.

The group care model used for the study is called Centering Pregnancy, in which 8-10 pregnant patients who are due in the same month attend 10 two-hour prenatal care sessions together. Dr. Crockett noted that other research has identified potential reductions in preterm birth with group care models, but some are underpowered while others are observational and limited by confounding, selection bias, or small sample sizes.

The researchers aimed to recruit 3,160 patients to ensure an adequately powered study after estimated losses to follow-up, but they were able to recruit only 2,350 patients, resulting in potentially underpowered results. All the patients were receiving care at a single obstetric practice for a medically low-risk singleton pregnancy of 20 or fewer weeks gestation. A total of 1,176 patients were randomly assigned to attend group prenatal care appointments, and 1,174 patients were assigned to individual prenatal care.

The patients in both groups were an average age of 25 with a prepregnancy body mass index of 29. A similar proportion in both the group and individual care were married (24%) patients and had a government payer (96%-97%). Approximately 41%were Black patients, 37% were White patients, and 21% were Hispanic patients in both groups. Rates of chronic hypertension, smoking, vaginal infection in pregnancy, parity, cervix length, and use of cerclage were similar in both groups.

Gestational age outcomes were available for 1,099 group care patients (94%) and 1,120 individual care patients (95%), and birth weight outcomes were available for 1,028 group care patients (87%) and 1,044 individual care patients (89%).

In the individual care group, 8.7% of the patients had a preterm birth, compared to 10.4% who attended group prenatal care, but the findings did not reach significance (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.63). The difference between the 9.6% of group care patients and 8.9% of individual care patients who had babies with low birth weights were not significantly different.

While no significant difference in preterm birth occurred between the groups, the secondary outcome looking at racial disparities yielded one statistically significant result. Black women receiving individual prenatal care were twice as likely as were White women to have an infant with a low birth weight (OR, 2.1; 95% CI: 1.29-3.5). Among those receiving group care, however, the 12.5% of Black women and 8.9% of White women whose infants had a low birth weight were not significantly different.

There was a trend toward narrower disparities in preterm birth in the group versus individual care groups. Among those receiving group care, 11.4% of Black women and 10.8% of White women had a preterm birth, compared to 10.2% of Black women and 7.7% of White women in the individual care group.

Then the researchers compared the groups with regard to compliance while adjusting for baseline differences. “We saw decreasing rates of preterm birth for Black patients relative to White patients, particularly after attending five or more sessions in the group care arm with the rates of preterm birth narrowing and the disparity becoming nonsignificant with more exposure to group care,” Dr. Crockett said. “In individual care, the rate of preterm birth remained the highest for Black women regardless of the number of visits attended.”

The idea of trying group prenatal care is appealing, Dr. Pluym said in an interview, though both models have their advantages.

”The strength of individual care is the focus on the patient exam and individual patient questions,” Dr. Pluym said. “The strengths of group prenatal care are the consolidation of the patient education aspect of prenatal care that is uniform for all patients, the sense of community patients feel, and the opportunity to hear other patients questions that you may not have thought of. It sounds like, anecdotally, patients and providers really found the group sessions valuable and they helped dampen implicit bias and build relationships.”

One potential limitation of this randomized controlled trial is that the providers were the same for both group and individual care, potentially causing some confounding, Dr. Pluym noted. But the study does have one clear clinical message, she said.

“My take away is more prenatal care is better – individual or group,” Dr. Pluym said. “Every clinic should evaluate their own structure and see if group care would be feasible for their patient population. There may be a benefit globally, but is it is not the ‘silver bullet,’ as they said, for lowering preterm birth or growth restriction.”

The research was funded by the Institute of Child Health and Development. The study researchers and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

Group prenatal care did not reduce preterm birth among low-income patients compared to patients receiving individual prenatal care, but the different care models did shrink racial disparities in low-birth-weight and preterm births, according to a study presented Feb. 3 at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Patients who attended more group prenatal care visits also had better outcomes, reported Amy Crockett, MD, professor of ob.gyn. and director of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellowship Program at the University of South Carolina in Greenville.

Though the results did not show group prenatal care to be the “silver bullet” they might have hoped for in reducing preterm birth and low birth weight among Black women, the study did show group prenatal care to have some clinical effect, Dr. Crockett suggested.

Ilina Pluym, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, said that preterm birth and low birth weight are complex problems that cannot be solved by a single fix.

“In terms of the racial disparities, it is difficult to prove that 9 months of good access to prenatal care will undo the years of limited health care and life stressors that, as a whole, possibly contribute more to the overall risk profile of the patient,” Dr. Pluym said. “But as providers, we want to intervene and help in the portion that we can, and optimizing prenatal care is one tangible thing we can try.”

The racial disparities that exist in preterm birth, low birth weight, and infant and maternal mortality are not caused by biologic or genetic factors, Dr. Crockett told attendees.

”Rather, they are the result of long-standing systemic racism and discrimination deeply embedded in the culture of the United States,” she said. “To achieve racial equity, we need reform at the societal level.” But she noted that it might be possible for individual practices to play a role as well, which led her to design a study comparing outcomes from group versus individual prenatal care.

The group care model used for the study is called Centering Pregnancy, in which 8-10 pregnant patients who are due in the same month attend 10 two-hour prenatal care sessions together. Dr. Crockett noted that other research has identified potential reductions in preterm birth with group care models, but some are underpowered while others are observational and limited by confounding, selection bias, or small sample sizes.

The researchers aimed to recruit 3,160 patients to ensure an adequately powered study after estimated losses to follow-up, but they were able to recruit only 2,350 patients, resulting in potentially underpowered results. All the patients were receiving care at a single obstetric practice for a medically low-risk singleton pregnancy of 20 or fewer weeks gestation. A total of 1,176 patients were randomly assigned to attend group prenatal care appointments, and 1,174 patients were assigned to individual prenatal care.

The patients in both groups were an average age of 25 with a prepregnancy body mass index of 29. A similar proportion in both the group and individual care were married (24%) patients and had a government payer (96%-97%). Approximately 41%were Black patients, 37% were White patients, and 21% were Hispanic patients in both groups. Rates of chronic hypertension, smoking, vaginal infection in pregnancy, parity, cervix length, and use of cerclage were similar in both groups.

Gestational age outcomes were available for 1,099 group care patients (94%) and 1,120 individual care patients (95%), and birth weight outcomes were available for 1,028 group care patients (87%) and 1,044 individual care patients (89%).

In the individual care group, 8.7% of the patients had a preterm birth, compared to 10.4% who attended group prenatal care, but the findings did not reach significance (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.63). The difference between the 9.6% of group care patients and 8.9% of individual care patients who had babies with low birth weights were not significantly different.

While no significant difference in preterm birth occurred between the groups, the secondary outcome looking at racial disparities yielded one statistically significant result. Black women receiving individual prenatal care were twice as likely as were White women to have an infant with a low birth weight (OR, 2.1; 95% CI: 1.29-3.5). Among those receiving group care, however, the 12.5% of Black women and 8.9% of White women whose infants had a low birth weight were not significantly different.

There was a trend toward narrower disparities in preterm birth in the group versus individual care groups. Among those receiving group care, 11.4% of Black women and 10.8% of White women had a preterm birth, compared to 10.2% of Black women and 7.7% of White women in the individual care group.

Then the researchers compared the groups with regard to compliance while adjusting for baseline differences. “We saw decreasing rates of preterm birth for Black patients relative to White patients, particularly after attending five or more sessions in the group care arm with the rates of preterm birth narrowing and the disparity becoming nonsignificant with more exposure to group care,” Dr. Crockett said. “In individual care, the rate of preterm birth remained the highest for Black women regardless of the number of visits attended.”

The idea of trying group prenatal care is appealing, Dr. Pluym said in an interview, though both models have their advantages.

”The strength of individual care is the focus on the patient exam and individual patient questions,” Dr. Pluym said. “The strengths of group prenatal care are the consolidation of the patient education aspect of prenatal care that is uniform for all patients, the sense of community patients feel, and the opportunity to hear other patients questions that you may not have thought of. It sounds like, anecdotally, patients and providers really found the group sessions valuable and they helped dampen implicit bias and build relationships.”

One potential limitation of this randomized controlled trial is that the providers were the same for both group and individual care, potentially causing some confounding, Dr. Pluym noted. But the study does have one clear clinical message, she said.

“My take away is more prenatal care is better – individual or group,” Dr. Pluym said. “Every clinic should evaluate their own structure and see if group care would be feasible for their patient population. There may be a benefit globally, but is it is not the ‘silver bullet,’ as they said, for lowering preterm birth or growth restriction.”

The research was funded by the Institute of Child Health and Development. The study researchers and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

Group prenatal care did not reduce preterm birth among low-income patients compared to patients receiving individual prenatal care, but the different care models did shrink racial disparities in low-birth-weight and preterm births, according to a study presented Feb. 3 at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Patients who attended more group prenatal care visits also had better outcomes, reported Amy Crockett, MD, professor of ob.gyn. and director of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellowship Program at the University of South Carolina in Greenville.

Though the results did not show group prenatal care to be the “silver bullet” they might have hoped for in reducing preterm birth and low birth weight among Black women, the study did show group prenatal care to have some clinical effect, Dr. Crockett suggested.

Ilina Pluym, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, said that preterm birth and low birth weight are complex problems that cannot be solved by a single fix.

“In terms of the racial disparities, it is difficult to prove that 9 months of good access to prenatal care will undo the years of limited health care and life stressors that, as a whole, possibly contribute more to the overall risk profile of the patient,” Dr. Pluym said. “But as providers, we want to intervene and help in the portion that we can, and optimizing prenatal care is one tangible thing we can try.”

The racial disparities that exist in preterm birth, low birth weight, and infant and maternal mortality are not caused by biologic or genetic factors, Dr. Crockett told attendees.

”Rather, they are the result of long-standing systemic racism and discrimination deeply embedded in the culture of the United States,” she said. “To achieve racial equity, we need reform at the societal level.” But she noted that it might be possible for individual practices to play a role as well, which led her to design a study comparing outcomes from group versus individual prenatal care.

The group care model used for the study is called Centering Pregnancy, in which 8-10 pregnant patients who are due in the same month attend 10 two-hour prenatal care sessions together. Dr. Crockett noted that other research has identified potential reductions in preterm birth with group care models, but some are underpowered while others are observational and limited by confounding, selection bias, or small sample sizes.

The researchers aimed to recruit 3,160 patients to ensure an adequately powered study after estimated losses to follow-up, but they were able to recruit only 2,350 patients, resulting in potentially underpowered results. All the patients were receiving care at a single obstetric practice for a medically low-risk singleton pregnancy of 20 or fewer weeks gestation. A total of 1,176 patients were randomly assigned to attend group prenatal care appointments, and 1,174 patients were assigned to individual prenatal care.

The patients in both groups were an average age of 25 with a prepregnancy body mass index of 29. A similar proportion in both the group and individual care were married (24%) patients and had a government payer (96%-97%). Approximately 41%were Black patients, 37% were White patients, and 21% were Hispanic patients in both groups. Rates of chronic hypertension, smoking, vaginal infection in pregnancy, parity, cervix length, and use of cerclage were similar in both groups.

Gestational age outcomes were available for 1,099 group care patients (94%) and 1,120 individual care patients (95%), and birth weight outcomes were available for 1,028 group care patients (87%) and 1,044 individual care patients (89%).

In the individual care group, 8.7% of the patients had a preterm birth, compared to 10.4% who attended group prenatal care, but the findings did not reach significance (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.63). The difference between the 9.6% of group care patients and 8.9% of individual care patients who had babies with low birth weights were not significantly different.

While no significant difference in preterm birth occurred between the groups, the secondary outcome looking at racial disparities yielded one statistically significant result. Black women receiving individual prenatal care were twice as likely as were White women to have an infant with a low birth weight (OR, 2.1; 95% CI: 1.29-3.5). Among those receiving group care, however, the 12.5% of Black women and 8.9% of White women whose infants had a low birth weight were not significantly different.

There was a trend toward narrower disparities in preterm birth in the group versus individual care groups. Among those receiving group care, 11.4% of Black women and 10.8% of White women had a preterm birth, compared to 10.2% of Black women and 7.7% of White women in the individual care group.

Then the researchers compared the groups with regard to compliance while adjusting for baseline differences. “We saw decreasing rates of preterm birth for Black patients relative to White patients, particularly after attending five or more sessions in the group care arm with the rates of preterm birth narrowing and the disparity becoming nonsignificant with more exposure to group care,” Dr. Crockett said. “In individual care, the rate of preterm birth remained the highest for Black women regardless of the number of visits attended.”

The idea of trying group prenatal care is appealing, Dr. Pluym said in an interview, though both models have their advantages.

”The strength of individual care is the focus on the patient exam and individual patient questions,” Dr. Pluym said. “The strengths of group prenatal care are the consolidation of the patient education aspect of prenatal care that is uniform for all patients, the sense of community patients feel, and the opportunity to hear other patients questions that you may not have thought of. It sounds like, anecdotally, patients and providers really found the group sessions valuable and they helped dampen implicit bias and build relationships.”

One potential limitation of this randomized controlled trial is that the providers were the same for both group and individual care, potentially causing some confounding, Dr. Pluym noted. But the study does have one clear clinical message, she said.

“My take away is more prenatal care is better – individual or group,” Dr. Pluym said. “Every clinic should evaluate their own structure and see if group care would be feasible for their patient population. There may be a benefit globally, but is it is not the ‘silver bullet,’ as they said, for lowering preterm birth or growth restriction.”

The research was funded by the Institute of Child Health and Development. The study researchers and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

Screening pregnant women with obesity for gestational diabetes before 20 weeks of pregnancy did not lead to any improved maternal or neonatal outcomes compared with doing routine screening between 24 and 28 weeks, according to research presented Feb. 4 at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“There is increasing evidence that early screening does not reduce the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes,” Jennifer Thompson, MD, associate professor of ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “The increasing number of studies that have demonstrated no benefit in reducing adverse perinatal outcomes leads to consideration to revise recommendations for early screening.”

However, she did note that early screening may be helpful in identifying patients with undiagnosed preexisting diabetes.

Michael Richley, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said catching those previously undiagnosed cases is one of the goals of earlier screening with the expectation that earlier management will lead to better outcomes.

“If a patient then obtains the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, introducing nutritional counseling and possible medical management early can lead to better outcomes,” said Dr. Richley, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research. ”While catching undiagnosed type 2 diabetes is not common, it is becoming increasingly common lately.”

Obesity is a known risk factor for impaired glucose metabolism and for gestational diabetes, explained presenter Christopher A. Enakpene, MD, an ob.gyn. from Midland, Tex., who completed the study while completing his maternal-fetal medicine fellowship at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Dr. Enakpene reminded attendees that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) currently recommends early screening for gestational diabetes in patients with certain risk factors, including obesity, a history of first-degree relatives with diabetes, or a history of gestational diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, poor pregnancy outcomes, fetal demise, congenital abnormalities, or birth of an infant large for gestational age.

The researchers screened 7,126 patients for enrollment in the study from March 2017 through February 2019 and identified 600 who met the criteria: An adult with a singleton pregnancy and body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m². Patients were excluded if they had preexisting diabetes, elevated blood glucose or impaired glucose tolerance, a history of gestational diabetes, any chromosomal anomalies or abnormalities in the pregnancy, or were past 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The prospective randomized controlled trial was open label and included 296 patients who were randomly assigned to early screening with a 1-hour glucose challenge test (GCT) and hemoglobin A_1c before 20 weeks, followed by a 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test if the GCT result was between 140 and 200 mg/dL with an HbA_1c of less than 6.5%. The other 304 patients were screened with a 1-hour GCT between 24 and 28 weeks but also had an HbA_1c test before 20 weeks.

The primary outcome was macrosomia, defined as a birth weight at least 4,000 g, with various maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes. The only significant difference between the groups at baseline was a higher proportion of Hispanic participants in the early screening group (22.4%) compared to the routine screening group (13.7%).

The groups had no significant differences in birth weight or macrosomia, which occurred in 2.8% of the early screening group and 3.4% of the routine screening group (P = .7). There were no significant differences in gestational age at delivery, preeclampsia, polyhydramnios, shoulder dystocia, cesarean delivery, or NICU admission. However, the rate of gestational diabetes was significantly higher in the early screening group (22.5%) than in the routine screening group (15.7%; P < .05). In addition, more participants with gestational diabetes in the early screening group used insulin (34.4%) compared with those in the routine screening group (15.6%; P < .05).

Dr. Enakpene noted several reasons that the perinatal outcomes may have been similar between the groups, such as the increased rate of gestational diabetes requiring treatment in the early screening group or a higher proportion of participants using insulin in the early screening group.

“Hence, the similarity in adverse perinatal outcomes between the groups despite a higher proportion of gestational diabetes in the early group might be due to more utilization of insulin,” Dr. Enakpene said.

Dr. Richley was not surprised by the findings and hypothesized that the reason for not seeing a difference in outcomes might relate to using a 20-week cutoff for testing when type 2 diabetes would be evident at any stage of pregnancy.

“It would be interesting to have a study look at diabetes testing exclusively in the first trimester for high-risk patients that looks at neonatal outcomes and see if that would show a difference between the two groups,” Dr. Richley said.

Dr. Thompson was similarly interested in whether 20 weeks was an early enough time for early screening.

”I would also like to know the differences in management between the two groups and if the knowledge of early diagnosis impacted their management, such as timing of medication start, amount of medication required, and how that differed from the standard group,” Dr. Thompson said. ”Since patients with a hemoglobin A_1c > 6.5% or glucose tolerance test > 200 [mg/dL] were excluded, I’m interested in the number of patients that were excluded since they likely have undiagnosed preexisting diabetes, which are the patients that may benefit most from early screening.”

Dr. Richley pointed out that the potential clinical implications of the study are limited right now.

“While their secondary outcomes of neonatal hypoglycemia, method of delivery, and other common obstetrical measures were not different, we cannot draw conclusions from this as the study was not powered to evaluate these findings,” Dr. Richley said. “I do still see a role in early screening for patients with risk factors but favor doing so at the first prenatal visit, whenever that is, as opposed to as late as mid-second trimester, though this is often when a patient’s first interaction with a health care system will be within their pregnancy.”

Dr. Enakpene, Dr. Thompson, and Dr. Richley reported no disclosures. External funding for the study was not noted.

Screening pregnant women with obesity for gestational diabetes before 20 weeks of pregnancy did not lead to any improved maternal or neonatal outcomes compared with doing routine screening between 24 and 28 weeks, according to research presented Feb. 4 at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“There is increasing evidence that early screening does not reduce the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes,” Jennifer Thompson, MD, associate professor of ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “The increasing number of studies that have demonstrated no benefit in reducing adverse perinatal outcomes leads to consideration to revise recommendations for early screening.”

However, she did note that early screening may be helpful in identifying patients with undiagnosed preexisting diabetes.

Michael Richley, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said catching those previously undiagnosed cases is one of the goals of earlier screening with the expectation that earlier management will lead to better outcomes.

“If a patient then obtains the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, introducing nutritional counseling and possible medical management early can lead to better outcomes,” said Dr. Richley, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research. ”While catching undiagnosed type 2 diabetes is not common, it is becoming increasingly common lately.”

Obesity is a known risk factor for impaired glucose metabolism and for gestational diabetes, explained presenter Christopher A. Enakpene, MD, an ob.gyn. from Midland, Tex., who completed the study while completing his maternal-fetal medicine fellowship at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Dr. Enakpene reminded attendees that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) currently recommends early screening for gestational diabetes in patients with certain risk factors, including obesity, a history of first-degree relatives with diabetes, or a history of gestational diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, poor pregnancy outcomes, fetal demise, congenital abnormalities, or birth of an infant large for gestational age.

The researchers screened 7,126 patients for enrollment in the study from March 2017 through February 2019 and identified 600 who met the criteria: An adult with a singleton pregnancy and body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m². Patients were excluded if they had preexisting diabetes, elevated blood glucose or impaired glucose tolerance, a history of gestational diabetes, any chromosomal anomalies or abnormalities in the pregnancy, or were past 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The prospective randomized controlled trial was open label and included 296 patients who were randomly assigned to early screening with a 1-hour glucose challenge test (GCT) and hemoglobin A_1c before 20 weeks, followed by a 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test if the GCT result was between 140 and 200 mg/dL with an HbA_1c of less than 6.5%. The other 304 patients were screened with a 1-hour GCT between 24 and 28 weeks but also had an HbA_1c test before 20 weeks.

The primary outcome was macrosomia, defined as a birth weight at least 4,000 g, with various maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes. The only significant difference between the groups at baseline was a higher proportion of Hispanic participants in the early screening group (22.4%) compared to the routine screening group (13.7%).

The groups had no significant differences in birth weight or macrosomia, which occurred in 2.8% of the early screening group and 3.4% of the routine screening group (P = .7). There were no significant differences in gestational age at delivery, preeclampsia, polyhydramnios, shoulder dystocia, cesarean delivery, or NICU admission. However, the rate of gestational diabetes was significantly higher in the early screening group (22.5%) than in the routine screening group (15.7%; P < .05). In addition, more participants with gestational diabetes in the early screening group used insulin (34.4%) compared with those in the routine screening group (15.6%; P < .05).

Dr. Enakpene noted several reasons that the perinatal outcomes may have been similar between the groups, such as the increased rate of gestational diabetes requiring treatment in the early screening group or a higher proportion of participants using insulin in the early screening group.

“Hence, the similarity in adverse perinatal outcomes between the groups despite a higher proportion of gestational diabetes in the early group might be due to more utilization of insulin,” Dr. Enakpene said.

Dr. Richley was not surprised by the findings and hypothesized that the reason for not seeing a difference in outcomes might relate to using a 20-week cutoff for testing when type 2 diabetes would be evident at any stage of pregnancy.

“It would be interesting to have a study look at diabetes testing exclusively in the first trimester for high-risk patients that looks at neonatal outcomes and see if that would show a difference between the two groups,” Dr. Richley said.

Dr. Thompson was similarly interested in whether 20 weeks was an early enough time for early screening.

”I would also like to know the differences in management between the two groups and if the knowledge of early diagnosis impacted their management, such as timing of medication start, amount of medication required, and how that differed from the standard group,” Dr. Thompson said. ”Since patients with a hemoglobin A_1c > 6.5% or glucose tolerance test > 200 [mg/dL] were excluded, I’m interested in the number of patients that were excluded since they likely have undiagnosed preexisting diabetes, which are the patients that may benefit most from early screening.”

Dr. Richley pointed out that the potential clinical implications of the study are limited right now.

“While their secondary outcomes of neonatal hypoglycemia, method of delivery, and other common obstetrical measures were not different, we cannot draw conclusions from this as the study was not powered to evaluate these findings,” Dr. Richley said. “I do still see a role in early screening for patients with risk factors but favor doing so at the first prenatal visit, whenever that is, as opposed to as late as mid-second trimester, though this is often when a patient’s first interaction with a health care system will be within their pregnancy.”

Dr. Enakpene, Dr. Thompson, and Dr. Richley reported no disclosures. External funding for the study was not noted.

Screening pregnant women with obesity for gestational diabetes before 20 weeks of pregnancy did not lead to any improved maternal or neonatal outcomes compared with doing routine screening between 24 and 28 weeks, according to research presented Feb. 4 at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“There is increasing evidence that early screening does not reduce the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes,” Jennifer Thompson, MD, associate professor of ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “The increasing number of studies that have demonstrated no benefit in reducing adverse perinatal outcomes leads to consideration to revise recommendations for early screening.”

However, she did note that early screening may be helpful in identifying patients with undiagnosed preexisting diabetes.

Michael Richley, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said catching those previously undiagnosed cases is one of the goals of earlier screening with the expectation that earlier management will lead to better outcomes.

“If a patient then obtains the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, introducing nutritional counseling and possible medical management early can lead to better outcomes,” said Dr. Richley, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research. ”While catching undiagnosed type 2 diabetes is not common, it is becoming increasingly common lately.”

Obesity is a known risk factor for impaired glucose metabolism and for gestational diabetes, explained presenter Christopher A. Enakpene, MD, an ob.gyn. from Midland, Tex., who completed the study while completing his maternal-fetal medicine fellowship at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Dr. Enakpene reminded attendees that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) currently recommends early screening for gestational diabetes in patients with certain risk factors, including obesity, a history of first-degree relatives with diabetes, or a history of gestational diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, poor pregnancy outcomes, fetal demise, congenital abnormalities, or birth of an infant large for gestational age.

The researchers screened 7,126 patients for enrollment in the study from March 2017 through February 2019 and identified 600 who met the criteria: An adult with a singleton pregnancy and body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m². Patients were excluded if they had preexisting diabetes, elevated blood glucose or impaired glucose tolerance, a history of gestational diabetes, any chromosomal anomalies or abnormalities in the pregnancy, or were past 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The prospective randomized controlled trial was open label and included 296 patients who were randomly assigned to early screening with a 1-hour glucose challenge test (GCT) and hemoglobin A_1c before 20 weeks, followed by a 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test if the GCT result was between 140 and 200 mg/dL with an HbA_1c of less than 6.5%. The other 304 patients were screened with a 1-hour GCT between 24 and 28 weeks but also had an HbA_1c test before 20 weeks.

The primary outcome was macrosomia, defined as a birth weight at least 4,000 g, with various maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes. The only significant difference between the groups at baseline was a higher proportion of Hispanic participants in the early screening group (22.4%) compared to the routine screening group (13.7%).

The groups had no significant differences in birth weight or macrosomia, which occurred in 2.8% of the early screening group and 3.4% of the routine screening group (P = .7). There were no significant differences in gestational age at delivery, preeclampsia, polyhydramnios, shoulder dystocia, cesarean delivery, or NICU admission. However, the rate of gestational diabetes was significantly higher in the early screening group (22.5%) than in the routine screening group (15.7%; P < .05). In addition, more participants with gestational diabetes in the early screening group used insulin (34.4%) compared with those in the routine screening group (15.6%; P < .05).

Dr. Enakpene noted several reasons that the perinatal outcomes may have been similar between the groups, such as the increased rate of gestational diabetes requiring treatment in the early screening group or a higher proportion of participants using insulin in the early screening group.

“Hence, the similarity in adverse perinatal outcomes between the groups despite a higher proportion of gestational diabetes in the early group might be due to more utilization of insulin,” Dr. Enakpene said.

Dr. Richley was not surprised by the findings and hypothesized that the reason for not seeing a difference in outcomes might relate to using a 20-week cutoff for testing when type 2 diabetes would be evident at any stage of pregnancy.

“It would be interesting to have a study look at diabetes testing exclusively in the first trimester for high-risk patients that looks at neonatal outcomes and see if that would show a difference between the two groups,” Dr. Richley said.

Dr. Thompson was similarly interested in whether 20 weeks was an early enough time for early screening.

”I would also like to know the differences in management between the two groups and if the knowledge of early diagnosis impacted their management, such as timing of medication start, amount of medication required, and how that differed from the standard group,” Dr. Thompson said. ”Since patients with a hemoglobin A_1c > 6.5% or glucose tolerance test > 200 [mg/dL] were excluded, I’m interested in the number of patients that were excluded since they likely have undiagnosed preexisting diabetes, which are the patients that may benefit most from early screening.”

Dr. Richley pointed out that the potential clinical implications of the study are limited right now.

“While their secondary outcomes of neonatal hypoglycemia, method of delivery, and other common obstetrical measures were not different, we cannot draw conclusions from this as the study was not powered to evaluate these findings,” Dr. Richley said. “I do still see a role in early screening for patients with risk factors but favor doing so at the first prenatal visit, whenever that is, as opposed to as late as mid-second trimester, though this is often when a patient’s first interaction with a health care system will be within their pregnancy.”

Dr. Enakpene, Dr. Thompson, and Dr. Richley reported no disclosures. External funding for the study was not noted.

Members of the LGBTQ community who give birth appear to have a greater risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and postpartum hemorrhage, according to new research presented at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“Our study found that birthing patients in likely sexual and gender minority partnerships experienced disparities in clinical outcomes,” Stephanie Leonard, PhD, an epidemiology and biostatistics instructor at the Stanford (Calif.) University division of maternal-fetal medicine and obstetrics, told attendees at the meeting. The disparities are likely because of various social determinants and possibly higher use of assisted reproductive technology (ART). The findings establish “how these are significant disparities that have been largely overlooked and set the groundwork for doing further research on maybe ways that we can improve the inclusivity of obstetric care.”

Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research, said the findings were “overall unfortunate but not surprising given the existing studies looking at LGBTQ patients and their poorer health outcomes, largely due to lack of access to health care and discrimination in the health care setting.”

Dr. Leonard described the societal, interpersonal, and individual factors that can contribute to health disparities among gender and sexual minority patients.

“At the societal level, there are expectations of what it means to be pregnant, to give birth, and to be a parent. At the community level, there’s the clinical care environment, and at the interpersonal level, there’s an obstetrician’s relationship with the patient,” Dr. Leonard said. “At the individual level, most notably is minority stress, the biological effects of the chronic experience of discrimination.”

It has historically been difficult to collect data on this patient population, but a change in the design of the California birth certificate made it possible to gather more data than previously possible. The updated California birth certificate, issued in 2016, allows the parent not giving birth to check off whether they are the child’s mother, father, parent, or “not specified” instead of defaulting to “father.” In addition, the parent giving birth can select mother, father, parent or not specified instead of being “mother” by default.

The researchers classified sexual and gender minority (SGM) partnerships as those in which the parent giving birth was identified as the father and those where both parents were identified as mothers. Non-SGM minority partnerships were those in which the birthing parent was identified as the mother and the nonbirthing parent was identified as the father.

The population-based cohort study included data from all live birth hospitalizations from 2016-2019 in California, whose annual births represent one in eight babies born each year in the United States. The population of SGM patients different significantly from the non-SGM population in nearly every demographic and clinical factor except rates of pre-existing diabetes. For example, 42% of the SGM birthing patients were age 35 or older, compared with 23% of the non-SGM patients.

SGM patients were more likely to be born in the United States, were more likely to be White, and were less likely to be Asian or Hispanic. SGM patients had higher education levels and were more likely to have private insurance. They were also more likely to be nulliparous and have chronic hypertension. Average body mass index for SGM patients was 33 kg/m², compared with 30 for non-SGM patients. SGM patients were also much more likely to have multifetal gestation: 7.1% of SGM patients versus 1.5% of non-SGM patients.

In terms of clinical outcomes, 14% of SGM patients had hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, compared with 8% of non-SGM patients. Before adjustment for potential confounders, SGM patients were also twice as likely to have postpartum hemorrhage (8% vs. 4% in non-SGM patients) and postterm birth at 42-44 weeks (0.6% vs 0.3% in non-SGM patients).

“Having increased postterm birth is a matter of declining induction of labor, as it is recommended to have an induction by 41 weeks of gestation in general,” Dr. Mei said in an interview. “It is also possible this patient cohort faces more barriers in access to care and possible discrimination as sexual/gender minority patients.”

Rates of severe preeclampsia, induction of labor, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, low birth weight, and a low Apgar score were also higher among SGM patients, but these associations were no longer significant after adjustment for age, education, payment method, parity, prepregnancy weight, comorbidities, and multifetal gestation. The difference in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, postpartum hemorrhage, and postterm birth remained statistically significant after adjustment.

Past research has shown that only about a third of cisgender female same-sex marriages used ART, so the disparities cannot be completely explained by ART use, Dr. Leonard said.

“I think the main drivers are structural disparities,” Dr. Leonard said. “Every obstetric clinic is focused in a way that’s about mother-father, and many people who don’t feel like they fit into that paradigm feel excluded and disengage with health care.”

Elliott Main, MD, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford University and coauthor of the study noted that discrimination and stigma likely play a substantial role in the disparities.

“Sexual and/or gender minority people face this discrimination at structural and interpersonal levels on a regular basis, which can lead to chronic stress and its harmful physical effects as well as lower-quality health care,” Dr. Main said in an interview.

Another coauthor, Juno Obedin-Maliver, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford, emphasized how much room for improvement exists in care for SGM obstetric patients.

“We hope that this study brings needed attention to the disparities in perinatal health experienced by sexual and/or gender minority people,” Dr. Obedin-Maliver said. “There is much we can do to better understand the family building goals of sexual and/or gender minority people and help those to be achieved with healthy outcomes for parents and their children.”

One limitation of the study is that it’s possible to misclassify individuals using the birth certificate data, and not everyone may be comfortable selecting the box that accurately represents their identity, particularly if they aren’t “out” or fear discrimination or stigma, so the population may underrepresent the actual numbers of sexual and gender minority individuals giving birth. Dr. Mei added that it would be helpful to see data on neonatal ICU admissions and use of ART.

It’s difficult to say how generalizable the findings are, Dr. Mei said. “It is possible the findings would be more exaggerated in the rest of the country outside of California, if we assume there is potentially lower health access and more stigma.” The fact that California offers different gender options for the birthing and nonbirthing parent is, by itself, an indication of a potentially more accepting social environment than might be found in other states.

”The take-home message is that this patient population is higher risk, likely partially due to baseline increased risk factors, such as older maternal age and likely use of ART, and partially due to possible lack of health access and stigma,” Dr. Mei said. “Health care providers should be notably cognizant of these increased risks, particularly in the psychosocial context and make efforts to reduce those burdens as much as possible.”

The research was funded by the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute. Dr. Obedin-Maliver has consulted for Sage Therapeutics, Ibis Reproductive Health, and Hims. Dr. Mei and the other authors had no disclosures.

Members of the LGBTQ community who give birth appear to have a greater risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and postpartum hemorrhage, according to new research presented at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“Our study found that birthing patients in likely sexual and gender minority partnerships experienced disparities in clinical outcomes,” Stephanie Leonard, PhD, an epidemiology and biostatistics instructor at the Stanford (Calif.) University division of maternal-fetal medicine and obstetrics, told attendees at the meeting. The disparities are likely because of various social determinants and possibly higher use of assisted reproductive technology (ART). The findings establish “how these are significant disparities that have been largely overlooked and set the groundwork for doing further research on maybe ways that we can improve the inclusivity of obstetric care.”

Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research, said the findings were “overall unfortunate but not surprising given the existing studies looking at LGBTQ patients and their poorer health outcomes, largely due to lack of access to health care and discrimination in the health care setting.”

Dr. Leonard described the societal, interpersonal, and individual factors that can contribute to health disparities among gender and sexual minority patients.

“At the societal level, there are expectations of what it means to be pregnant, to give birth, and to be a parent. At the community level, there’s the clinical care environment, and at the interpersonal level, there’s an obstetrician’s relationship with the patient,” Dr. Leonard said. “At the individual level, most notably is minority stress, the biological effects of the chronic experience of discrimination.”

It has historically been difficult to collect data on this patient population, but a change in the design of the California birth certificate made it possible to gather more data than previously possible. The updated California birth certificate, issued in 2016, allows the parent not giving birth to check off whether they are the child’s mother, father, parent, or “not specified” instead of defaulting to “father.” In addition, the parent giving birth can select mother, father, parent or not specified instead of being “mother” by default.

The researchers classified sexual and gender minority (SGM) partnerships as those in which the parent giving birth was identified as the father and those where both parents were identified as mothers. Non-SGM minority partnerships were those in which the birthing parent was identified as the mother and the nonbirthing parent was identified as the father.

The population-based cohort study included data from all live birth hospitalizations from 2016-2019 in California, whose annual births represent one in eight babies born each year in the United States. The population of SGM patients different significantly from the non-SGM population in nearly every demographic and clinical factor except rates of pre-existing diabetes. For example, 42% of the SGM birthing patients were age 35 or older, compared with 23% of the non-SGM patients.

SGM patients were more likely to be born in the United States, were more likely to be White, and were less likely to be Asian or Hispanic. SGM patients had higher education levels and were more likely to have private insurance. They were also more likely to be nulliparous and have chronic hypertension. Average body mass index for SGM patients was 33 kg/m², compared with 30 for non-SGM patients. SGM patients were also much more likely to have multifetal gestation: 7.1% of SGM patients versus 1.5% of non-SGM patients.

In terms of clinical outcomes, 14% of SGM patients had hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, compared with 8% of non-SGM patients. Before adjustment for potential confounders, SGM patients were also twice as likely to have postpartum hemorrhage (8% vs. 4% in non-SGM patients) and postterm birth at 42-44 weeks (0.6% vs 0.3% in non-SGM patients).

“Having increased postterm birth is a matter of declining induction of labor, as it is recommended to have an induction by 41 weeks of gestation in general,” Dr. Mei said in an interview. “It is also possible this patient cohort faces more barriers in access to care and possible discrimination as sexual/gender minority patients.”

Rates of severe preeclampsia, induction of labor, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, low birth weight, and a low Apgar score were also higher among SGM patients, but these associations were no longer significant after adjustment for age, education, payment method, parity, prepregnancy weight, comorbidities, and multifetal gestation. The difference in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, postpartum hemorrhage, and postterm birth remained statistically significant after adjustment.

Past research has shown that only about a third of cisgender female same-sex marriages used ART, so the disparities cannot be completely explained by ART use, Dr. Leonard said.

“I think the main drivers are structural disparities,” Dr. Leonard said. “Every obstetric clinic is focused in a way that’s about mother-father, and many people who don’t feel like they fit into that paradigm feel excluded and disengage with health care.”

Elliott Main, MD, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford University and coauthor of the study noted that discrimination and stigma likely play a substantial role in the disparities.

“Sexual and/or gender minority people face this discrimination at structural and interpersonal levels on a regular basis, which can lead to chronic stress and its harmful physical effects as well as lower-quality health care,” Dr. Main said in an interview.

Another coauthor, Juno Obedin-Maliver, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford, emphasized how much room for improvement exists in care for SGM obstetric patients.

“We hope that this study brings needed attention to the disparities in perinatal health experienced by sexual and/or gender minority people,” Dr. Obedin-Maliver said. “There is much we can do to better understand the family building goals of sexual and/or gender minority people and help those to be achieved with healthy outcomes for parents and their children.”

One limitation of the study is that it’s possible to misclassify individuals using the birth certificate data, and not everyone may be comfortable selecting the box that accurately represents their identity, particularly if they aren’t “out” or fear discrimination or stigma, so the population may underrepresent the actual numbers of sexual and gender minority individuals giving birth. Dr. Mei added that it would be helpful to see data on neonatal ICU admissions and use of ART.

It’s difficult to say how generalizable the findings are, Dr. Mei said. “It is possible the findings would be more exaggerated in the rest of the country outside of California, if we assume there is potentially lower health access and more stigma.” The fact that California offers different gender options for the birthing and nonbirthing parent is, by itself, an indication of a potentially more accepting social environment than might be found in other states.

”The take-home message is that this patient population is higher risk, likely partially due to baseline increased risk factors, such as older maternal age and likely use of ART, and partially due to possible lack of health access and stigma,” Dr. Mei said. “Health care providers should be notably cognizant of these increased risks, particularly in the psychosocial context and make efforts to reduce those burdens as much as possible.”

The research was funded by the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute. Dr. Obedin-Maliver has consulted for Sage Therapeutics, Ibis Reproductive Health, and Hims. Dr. Mei and the other authors had no disclosures.

Members of the LGBTQ community who give birth appear to have a greater risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and postpartum hemorrhage, according to new research presented at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“Our study found that birthing patients in likely sexual and gender minority partnerships experienced disparities in clinical outcomes,” Stephanie Leonard, PhD, an epidemiology and biostatistics instructor at the Stanford (Calif.) University division of maternal-fetal medicine and obstetrics, told attendees at the meeting. The disparities are likely because of various social determinants and possibly higher use of assisted reproductive technology (ART). The findings establish “how these are significant disparities that have been largely overlooked and set the groundwork for doing further research on maybe ways that we can improve the inclusivity of obstetric care.”

Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research, said the findings were “overall unfortunate but not surprising given the existing studies looking at LGBTQ patients and their poorer health outcomes, largely due to lack of access to health care and discrimination in the health care setting.”

Dr. Leonard described the societal, interpersonal, and individual factors that can contribute to health disparities among gender and sexual minority patients.

“At the societal level, there are expectations of what it means to be pregnant, to give birth, and to be a parent. At the community level, there’s the clinical care environment, and at the interpersonal level, there’s an obstetrician’s relationship with the patient,” Dr. Leonard said. “At the individual level, most notably is minority stress, the biological effects of the chronic experience of discrimination.”

It has historically been difficult to collect data on this patient population, but a change in the design of the California birth certificate made it possible to gather more data than previously possible. The updated California birth certificate, issued in 2016, allows the parent not giving birth to check off whether they are the child’s mother, father, parent, or “not specified” instead of defaulting to “father.” In addition, the parent giving birth can select mother, father, parent or not specified instead of being “mother” by default.

The researchers classified sexual and gender minority (SGM) partnerships as those in which the parent giving birth was identified as the father and those where both parents were identified as mothers. Non-SGM minority partnerships were those in which the birthing parent was identified as the mother and the nonbirthing parent was identified as the father.

The population-based cohort study included data from all live birth hospitalizations from 2016-2019 in California, whose annual births represent one in eight babies born each year in the United States. The population of SGM patients different significantly from the non-SGM population in nearly every demographic and clinical factor except rates of pre-existing diabetes. For example, 42% of the SGM birthing patients were age 35 or older, compared with 23% of the non-SGM patients.

SGM patients were more likely to be born in the United States, were more likely to be White, and were less likely to be Asian or Hispanic. SGM patients had higher education levels and were more likely to have private insurance. They were also more likely to be nulliparous and have chronic hypertension. Average body mass index for SGM patients was 33 kg/m², compared with 30 for non-SGM patients. SGM patients were also much more likely to have multifetal gestation: 7.1% of SGM patients versus 1.5% of non-SGM patients.

In terms of clinical outcomes, 14% of SGM patients had hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, compared with 8% of non-SGM patients. Before adjustment for potential confounders, SGM patients were also twice as likely to have postpartum hemorrhage (8% vs. 4% in non-SGM patients) and postterm birth at 42-44 weeks (0.6% vs 0.3% in non-SGM patients).

“Having increased postterm birth is a matter of declining induction of labor, as it is recommended to have an induction by 41 weeks of gestation in general,” Dr. Mei said in an interview. “It is also possible this patient cohort faces more barriers in access to care and possible discrimination as sexual/gender minority patients.”

Rates of severe preeclampsia, induction of labor, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, low birth weight, and a low Apgar score were also higher among SGM patients, but these associations were no longer significant after adjustment for age, education, payment method, parity, prepregnancy weight, comorbidities, and multifetal gestation. The difference in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, postpartum hemorrhage, and postterm birth remained statistically significant after adjustment.

Past research has shown that only about a third of cisgender female same-sex marriages used ART, so the disparities cannot be completely explained by ART use, Dr. Leonard said.

“I think the main drivers are structural disparities,” Dr. Leonard said. “Every obstetric clinic is focused in a way that’s about mother-father, and many people who don’t feel like they fit into that paradigm feel excluded and disengage with health care.”

Elliott Main, MD, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford University and coauthor of the study noted that discrimination and stigma likely play a substantial role in the disparities.

“Sexual and/or gender minority people face this discrimination at structural and interpersonal levels on a regular basis, which can lead to chronic stress and its harmful physical effects as well as lower-quality health care,” Dr. Main said in an interview.

Another coauthor, Juno Obedin-Maliver, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford, emphasized how much room for improvement exists in care for SGM obstetric patients.

“We hope that this study brings needed attention to the disparities in perinatal health experienced by sexual and/or gender minority people,” Dr. Obedin-Maliver said. “There is much we can do to better understand the family building goals of sexual and/or gender minority people and help those to be achieved with healthy outcomes for parents and their children.”

One limitation of the study is that it’s possible to misclassify individuals using the birth certificate data, and not everyone may be comfortable selecting the box that accurately represents their identity, particularly if they aren’t “out” or fear discrimination or stigma, so the population may underrepresent the actual numbers of sexual and gender minority individuals giving birth. Dr. Mei added that it would be helpful to see data on neonatal ICU admissions and use of ART.

It’s difficult to say how generalizable the findings are, Dr. Mei said. “It is possible the findings would be more exaggerated in the rest of the country outside of California, if we assume there is potentially lower health access and more stigma.” The fact that California offers different gender options for the birthing and nonbirthing parent is, by itself, an indication of a potentially more accepting social environment than might be found in other states.

”The take-home message is that this patient population is higher risk, likely partially due to baseline increased risk factors, such as older maternal age and likely use of ART, and partially due to possible lack of health access and stigma,” Dr. Mei said. “Health care providers should be notably cognizant of these increased risks, particularly in the psychosocial context and make efforts to reduce those burdens as much as possible.”

The research was funded by the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute. Dr. Obedin-Maliver has consulted for Sage Therapeutics, Ibis Reproductive Health, and Hims. Dr. Mei and the other authors had no disclosures.

The potential effectiveness of using vaginal progesterone to prevent preterm birth in two different populations was the focus of a pair of studies with mixed results at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine on Feb. 3. One study found no benefit from vaginal progesterone in those with first trimester bleeding, while the other, in a head-to-head comparison with 17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC), found vaginal progesterone performs similarly to 17-OHPC in singleton pregnancies with a history of preterm birth.

While the first study does not suggest any changes in clinical practice, the second one suggests that vaginal progesterone is an alternative to 17-OHPC, as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists currently recommends. SMFM currently only includes 17-OHPC in its guidelines.

“In otherwise low-risk pregnancies with first trimester bleeding, progesterone should not be prescribed for the prevention of miscarriage or prematurity,” Haim A. Abenhaim, MD, MPH, of the Jewish General Hospital at McGill University, Montreal, told attendees in his presentation.

”Publishing the negative result is so important because this helps the overall body of literature reduce the amount of publication bias that exists in the literature,” Michael Richley, MD, an ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Richley was not involved in the research but attended the presentation.
 

Vaginal progesterone for first trimester bleeding

Most preterm birth occurs in pregnancies with no identifiable risk factors, but first-trimester bleeding may indicate subchorionic hemorrhage from placental detachment, which can increase the risk of preterm birth. Other risk factors where progesterone has previously shown effectiveness in reducing preterm birth risk include short cervix and a history of prior preterm birth.

The first study (PREEMPT) was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted at six Canadian hospitals with 533 women. The participants all experienced bleeding within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy and a documented subchorionic hemorrhage. The trial excluded those who already required progesterone, had contraindications to progesterone or had an alternate cause of bleeding.

The intervention group included 264 women randomly assigned to use 200 mg of micronized progesterone administered with a vaginal suppository at bedtime, while the placebo group included 269 women who used a vaginal suppository with no medication, both administered until 34 weeks of pregnancy. The groups were not significantly different in age, race, or former pregnancies, live births, and miscarriages. They were also similar in clinical characteristics of bleeding and subchorionic hemorrhage.

The proportion of term births was similar between the progesterone (74.6%) and placebo (70.6%) groups (P =.3), as was the proportion of preterm births (10.2% progesterone vs. 12.3% placebo, P =.46). There were also no significant differences in the secondary outcomes of cramping, hospital admission, bed rest, or preventive measures, including pessary, cerclage, antibiotics, magnesium, and nifedipine. Newborns across both groups were statistically similar in average birth weight and distribution of birth weights and in incidence of neonatal ICU admission or respiratory distress syndrome. Adverse events were similar across both groups.

”The results are not surprising as several studies in the past have shown similar lack of efficacy,” Dr. said. “The pathophysiology of subchorionic hematoma is different from the multifactorial etiologies of spontaneous preterm birth, and given our lack of clear understanding of the actions of progesterone, the lack of efficacy in this subgroup with subchorionic hematoma is not surprising.”

Dr. Richley did note that having a low-risk population to start with may have affected the findings, which might be different in a high-risk population.

“I don’t believe this will change anything within clinical practice. At this time, progesterone is not used in any form in the setting of first trimester threatened abortion by maternal-fetal medicine specialists,” Dr. Richley said. “There may be other subgroups of clinicians who do prescribe progesterone in this setting, and these data should further encourage them to move away from this practice.”

Dr. Abenhaim noted a couple unexpected issues that occurred during the course of the study, such as underreporting of subchorionic hemorrhage with radiologic confirmation that resulted in a smaller population and a change in protocol to include patients with no identifiable secondary source of bleeding. The pandemic also halted enrollment, and the investigators halted the trial when recruitment could have continued since interim analysis showed no likely benefit.

Though first trimester bleeding is associated with a 25%-30% increased risk of miscarriage or preterm birth, the findings showed that progesterone did not prevent miscarriage or prematurity, or increase the live birth rate, in low-risk patients with first trimester bleeding.
 

Vaginal progesterone vs. 17-OHPC

Although a 2017 meta-analysis had found vaginal progesterone to be superior to 17-OHPC in preventing preterm birth, few studies were available, and they had wide confidence intervals. This open-label randomized controlled trial took place at five U.S. sites and included participants who had a singleton pregnancy less than 24 weeks along and a history of singleton preterm birth between 16 and 37 weeks. The trials excluded those with placenta previa or accreta, preterm labor, preterm premature rupture of the membranes, clinical chorioamnionitis, or a major fetal anomaly or chromosomal disorder.

Among 205 women initially randomized, 94 in each group completed the trial, either inserting 200 mg of micronized progesterone daily with a vaginal suppository or receiving 250 mg of weekly intramuscular injections of 17-OHPC from 16 to 36 weeks’ gestation. The only significant difference between the groups in demographics or clinical features was that the vaginal progesterone group had a higher proportion of multiple past preterm births (33%) compared with the 17-OHPC group (17%). Cervical length and use of cerclage were also similar between the groups.

Though 30.9% of the vaginal progesterone group delivered preterm before 37 weeks, compared with 38.3% in the 17-OHPC group, the difference was not significant (P =.28). There was a borderline statistical difference between gestational age at delivery: 37.4 weeks in the vaginal progesterone group versus 36.3 weeks in the 17-OHPC group (P =.047). Neonatal outcomes were clinically similar between the two groups. Therapy initiation did slightly differ between the groups, with an average start 1 gestational week earlier in the vaginal progesterone group (16.9 vs. 17.8, P =.001) and a higher proportion of patients in the 17-OHPC group initiating therapy after 20 weeks (16.5% vs. 2.2%, P =.001). Adherence was otherwise similar between the groups, and the groups reported similar rates and types of side effects.

The trial did not meet the primary endpoint of vaginal progesterone reducing risk of recurrent preterm birth by 50%, compared with 17-OHPC, but it may increase latency to delivery, Rupsa C. Boelig, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told attendees. Though this was the largest trial to compare vaginal progesterone with 17-OHPC for preventing preterm birth, it was underpowered to detect a difference in efficacy, to conduct subgroup analyses, and to assess secondary outcomes, Dr. Boelig noted. “Baseline difference in preterm birth risk may affect apparent relative efficacy of vaginal progesterone.”

Nevertheless, the “totality of evidence appears to be greater for vaginal progesterone,” Dr. Boelig said, making vaginal progesterone an acceptable alternative to 17-OHPC. ACOG recommendations currently include offering either, but SMFM recommendations only mention 17-OHPC.

It’s worth noting, however, that the future of 17-OHPC, a synthetic compound, compared with naturally occurring micronized progesterone, continues to be uncertain following a 2020 study that found no evidence of its efficacy, leading the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw its approval for prevention of preterm birth. ”These findings are important especially in light of the controversy surrounding 17-OHP,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at UCLA, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “It is also sometimes difficult for patients to commit to weekly 17-OHPC injections, which requires time and many doctors visits, as compared to vaginal progesterone, which patients can administer at home.” Since this study does not have a placebo group, “it does not address the question of the overall efficacy of either medication compared to a control,” Dr. Mei said. ”It is also a somewhat small patient population so the results may change with a larger population. The authors conclude it is worth readdressing the use of vaginal progesterone for these patients.”

Herman L. Hedriana, MD, professor and director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and the maternal-fetal medicine fellowship program at the University of California, Davis, also pointed out notable differences between the two compounds.

“One has to remember that the formulation and mechanism of action are very different between 17-OHPC and the vaginal application of micronized progesterone. We do not have enough data to say one is superior versus the other,” said Dr. Hedriana, who was not involved in the research. “With 17-OHPC, the mechanism of action appears to be influenced by how the drug is metabolized based on race and ethnicity makeup, and may be influence by epigenetics,” while the mechanism for vaginal progesterone is probably local “given it is applied directly next to the cervix; hence, the results are it is effective in short cervices.” But those differing mechanisms don’t change the clinical significance of the findings. “One can use vaginal progesterone or 17-OHPC based on patient preference and availability,” Dr. Hedriana said.

The researchers of both studies reported no personal financial or industry disclosures, though Dr. Boelig disclosed that she had taken 17-OHPC and had cerclages during both her pregnancies, which resulted in healthy children today. The PREEMPT trial was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The head-to-head trial was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Development, the March of Dimes, the EW Thrasher Foundation, the PhRMA Foundation, and Covis Pharma, who manufactures the 17-OHPC drug Makena.

This story was updated on 2/8/2022.

The potential effectiveness of using vaginal progesterone to prevent preterm birth in two different populations was the focus of a pair of studies with mixed results at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine on Feb. 3. One study found no benefit from vaginal progesterone in those with first trimester bleeding, while the other, in a head-to-head comparison with 17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC), found vaginal progesterone performs similarly to 17-OHPC in singleton pregnancies with a history of preterm birth.

While the first study does not suggest any changes in clinical practice, the second one suggests that vaginal progesterone is an alternative to 17-OHPC, as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists currently recommends. SMFM currently only includes 17-OHPC in its guidelines.

“In otherwise low-risk pregnancies with first trimester bleeding, progesterone should not be prescribed for the prevention of miscarriage or prematurity,” Haim A. Abenhaim, MD, MPH, of the Jewish General Hospital at McGill University, Montreal, told attendees in his presentation.

”Publishing the negative result is so important because this helps the overall body of literature reduce the amount of publication bias that exists in the literature,” Michael Richley, MD, an ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Richley was not involved in the research but attended the presentation.
 

Vaginal progesterone for first trimester bleeding

Most preterm birth occurs in pregnancies with no identifiable risk factors, but first-trimester bleeding may indicate subchorionic hemorrhage from placental detachment, which can increase the risk of preterm birth. Other risk factors where progesterone has previously shown effectiveness in reducing preterm birth risk include short cervix and a history of prior preterm birth.

The first study (PREEMPT) was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted at six Canadian hospitals with 533 women. The participants all experienced bleeding within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy and a documented subchorionic hemorrhage. The trial excluded those who already required progesterone, had contraindications to progesterone or had an alternate cause of bleeding.

The intervention group included 264 women randomly assigned to use 200 mg of micronized progesterone administered with a vaginal suppository at bedtime, while the placebo group included 269 women who used a vaginal suppository with no medication, both administered until 34 weeks of pregnancy. The groups were not significantly different in age, race, or former pregnancies, live births, and miscarriages. They were also similar in clinical characteristics of bleeding and subchorionic hemorrhage.

The proportion of term births was similar between the progesterone (74.6%) and placebo (70.6%) groups (P =.3), as was the proportion of preterm births (10.2% progesterone vs. 12.3% placebo, P =.46). There were also no significant differences in the secondary outcomes of cramping, hospital admission, bed rest, or preventive measures, including pessary, cerclage, antibiotics, magnesium, and nifedipine. Newborns across both groups were statistically similar in average birth weight and distribution of birth weights and in incidence of neonatal ICU admission or respiratory distress syndrome. Adverse events were similar across both groups.

”The results are not surprising as several studies in the past have shown similar lack of efficacy,” Dr. said. “The pathophysiology of subchorionic hematoma is different from the multifactorial etiologies of spontaneous preterm birth, and given our lack of clear understanding of the actions of progesterone, the lack of efficacy in this subgroup with subchorionic hematoma is not surprising.”

Dr. Richley did note that having a low-risk population to start with may have affected the findings, which might be different in a high-risk population.

“I don’t believe this will change anything within clinical practice. At this time, progesterone is not used in any form in the setting of first trimester threatened abortion by maternal-fetal medicine specialists,” Dr. Richley said. “There may be other subgroups of clinicians who do prescribe progesterone in this setting, and these data should further encourage them to move away from this practice.”

Dr. Abenhaim noted a couple unexpected issues that occurred during the course of the study, such as underreporting of subchorionic hemorrhage with radiologic confirmation that resulted in a smaller population and a change in protocol to include patients with no identifiable secondary source of bleeding. The pandemic also halted enrollment, and the investigators halted the trial when recruitment could have continued since interim analysis showed no likely benefit.

Though first trimester bleeding is associated with a 25%-30% increased risk of miscarriage or preterm birth, the findings showed that progesterone did not prevent miscarriage or prematurity, or increase the live birth rate, in low-risk patients with first trimester bleeding.
 

Vaginal progesterone vs. 17-OHPC

Although a 2017 meta-analysis had found vaginal progesterone to be superior to 17-OHPC in preventing preterm birth, few studies were available, and they had wide confidence intervals. This open-label randomized controlled trial took place at five U.S. sites and included participants who had a singleton pregnancy less than 24 weeks along and a history of singleton preterm birth between 16 and 37 weeks. The trials excluded those with placenta previa or accreta, preterm labor, preterm premature rupture of the membranes, clinical chorioamnionitis, or a major fetal anomaly or chromosomal disorder.

Among 205 women initially randomized, 94 in each group completed the trial, either inserting 200 mg of micronized progesterone daily with a vaginal suppository or receiving 250 mg of weekly intramuscular injections of 17-OHPC from 16 to 36 weeks’ gestation. The only significant difference between the groups in demographics or clinical features was that the vaginal progesterone group had a higher proportion of multiple past preterm births (33%) compared with the 17-OHPC group (17%). Cervical length and use of cerclage were also similar between the groups.

Though 30.9% of the vaginal progesterone group delivered preterm before 37 weeks, compared with 38.3% in the 17-OHPC group, the difference was not significant (P =.28). There was a borderline statistical difference between gestational age at delivery: 37.4 weeks in the vaginal progesterone group versus 36.3 weeks in the 17-OHPC group (P =.047). Neonatal outcomes were clinically similar between the two groups. Therapy initiation did slightly differ between the groups, with an average start 1 gestational week earlier in the vaginal progesterone group (16.9 vs. 17.8, P =.001) and a higher proportion of patients in the 17-OHPC group initiating therapy after 20 weeks (16.5% vs. 2.2%, P =.001). Adherence was otherwise similar between the groups, and the groups reported similar rates and types of side effects.

The trial did not meet the primary endpoint of vaginal progesterone reducing risk of recurrent preterm birth by 50%, compared with 17-OHPC, but it may increase latency to delivery, Rupsa C. Boelig, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told attendees. Though this was the largest trial to compare vaginal progesterone with 17-OHPC for preventing preterm birth, it was underpowered to detect a difference in efficacy, to conduct subgroup analyses, and to assess secondary outcomes, Dr. Boelig noted. “Baseline difference in preterm birth risk may affect apparent relative efficacy of vaginal progesterone.”

Nevertheless, the “totality of evidence appears to be greater for vaginal progesterone,” Dr. Boelig said, making vaginal progesterone an acceptable alternative to 17-OHPC. ACOG recommendations currently include offering either, but SMFM recommendations only mention 17-OHPC.

It’s worth noting, however, that the future of 17-OHPC, a synthetic compound, compared with naturally occurring micronized progesterone, continues to be uncertain following a 2020 study that found no evidence of its efficacy, leading the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw its approval for prevention of preterm birth. ”These findings are important especially in light of the controversy surrounding 17-OHP,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at UCLA, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “It is also sometimes difficult for patients to commit to weekly 17-OHPC injections, which requires time and many doctors visits, as compared to vaginal progesterone, which patients can administer at home.” Since this study does not have a placebo group, “it does not address the question of the overall efficacy of either medication compared to a control,” Dr. Mei said. ”It is also a somewhat small patient population so the results may change with a larger population. The authors conclude it is worth readdressing the use of vaginal progesterone for these patients.”

Herman L. Hedriana, MD, professor and director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and the maternal-fetal medicine fellowship program at the University of California, Davis, also pointed out notable differences between the two compounds.

“One has to remember that the formulation and mechanism of action are very different between 17-OHPC and the vaginal application of micronized progesterone. We do not have enough data to say one is superior versus the other,” said Dr. Hedriana, who was not involved in the research. “With 17-OHPC, the mechanism of action appears to be influenced by how the drug is metabolized based on race and ethnicity makeup, and may be influence by epigenetics,” while the mechanism for vaginal progesterone is probably local “given it is applied directly next to the cervix; hence, the results are it is effective in short cervices.” But those differing mechanisms don’t change the clinical significance of the findings. “One can use vaginal progesterone or 17-OHPC based on patient preference and availability,” Dr. Hedriana said.

The researchers of both studies reported no personal financial or industry disclosures, though Dr. Boelig disclosed that she had taken 17-OHPC and had cerclages during both her pregnancies, which resulted in healthy children today. The PREEMPT trial was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The head-to-head trial was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Development, the March of Dimes, the EW Thrasher Foundation, the PhRMA Foundation, and Covis Pharma, who manufactures the 17-OHPC drug Makena.

This story was updated on 2/8/2022.

The potential effectiveness of using vaginal progesterone to prevent preterm birth in two different populations was the focus of a pair of studies with mixed results at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine on Feb. 3. One study found no benefit from vaginal progesterone in those with first trimester bleeding, while the other, in a head-to-head comparison with 17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC), found vaginal progesterone performs similarly to 17-OHPC in singleton pregnancies with a history of preterm birth.

While the first study does not suggest any changes in clinical practice, the second one suggests that vaginal progesterone is an alternative to 17-OHPC, as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists currently recommends. SMFM currently only includes 17-OHPC in its guidelines.

“In otherwise low-risk pregnancies with first trimester bleeding, progesterone should not be prescribed for the prevention of miscarriage or prematurity,” Haim A. Abenhaim, MD, MPH, of the Jewish General Hospital at McGill University, Montreal, told attendees in his presentation.

”Publishing the negative result is so important because this helps the overall body of literature reduce the amount of publication bias that exists in the literature,” Michael Richley, MD, an ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Richley was not involved in the research but attended the presentation.
 

Vaginal progesterone for first trimester bleeding

Most preterm birth occurs in pregnancies with no identifiable risk factors, but first-trimester bleeding may indicate subchorionic hemorrhage from placental detachment, which can increase the risk of preterm birth. Other risk factors where progesterone has previously shown effectiveness in reducing preterm birth risk include short cervix and a history of prior preterm birth.

The first study (PREEMPT) was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted at six Canadian hospitals with 533 women. The participants all experienced bleeding within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy and a documented subchorionic hemorrhage. The trial excluded those who already required progesterone, had contraindications to progesterone or had an alternate cause of bleeding.

The intervention group included 264 women randomly assigned to use 200 mg of micronized progesterone administered with a vaginal suppository at bedtime, while the placebo group included 269 women who used a vaginal suppository with no medication, both administered until 34 weeks of pregnancy. The groups were not significantly different in age, race, or former pregnancies, live births, and miscarriages. They were also similar in clinical characteristics of bleeding and subchorionic hemorrhage.

The proportion of term births was similar between the progesterone (74.6%) and placebo (70.6%) groups (P =.3), as was the proportion of preterm births (10.2% progesterone vs. 12.3% placebo, P =.46). There were also no significant differences in the secondary outcomes of cramping, hospital admission, bed rest, or preventive measures, including pessary, cerclage, antibiotics, magnesium, and nifedipine. Newborns across both groups were statistically similar in average birth weight and distribution of birth weights and in incidence of neonatal ICU admission or respiratory distress syndrome. Adverse events were similar across both groups.

”The results are not surprising as several studies in the past have shown similar lack of efficacy,” Dr. said. “The pathophysiology of subchorionic hematoma is different from the multifactorial etiologies of spontaneous preterm birth, and given our lack of clear understanding of the actions of progesterone, the lack of efficacy in this subgroup with subchorionic hematoma is not surprising.”

Dr. Richley did note that having a low-risk population to start with may have affected the findings, which might be different in a high-risk population.

“I don’t believe this will change anything within clinical practice. At this time, progesterone is not used in any form in the setting of first trimester threatened abortion by maternal-fetal medicine specialists,” Dr. Richley said. “There may be other subgroups of clinicians who do prescribe progesterone in this setting, and these data should further encourage them to move away from this practice.”

Dr. Abenhaim noted a couple unexpected issues that occurred during the course of the study, such as underreporting of subchorionic hemorrhage with radiologic confirmation that resulted in a smaller population and a change in protocol to include patients with no identifiable secondary source of bleeding. The pandemic also halted enrollment, and the investigators halted the trial when recruitment could have continued since interim analysis showed no likely benefit.

Though first trimester bleeding is associated with a 25%-30% increased risk of miscarriage or preterm birth, the findings showed that progesterone did not prevent miscarriage or prematurity, or increase the live birth rate, in low-risk patients with first trimester bleeding.
 

Vaginal progesterone vs. 17-OHPC

Although a 2017 meta-analysis had found vaginal progesterone to be superior to 17-OHPC in preventing preterm birth, few studies were available, and they had wide confidence intervals. This open-label randomized controlled trial took place at five U.S. sites and included participants who had a singleton pregnancy less than 24 weeks along and a history of singleton preterm birth between 16 and 37 weeks. The trials excluded those with placenta previa or accreta, preterm labor, preterm premature rupture of the membranes, clinical chorioamnionitis, or a major fetal anomaly or chromosomal disorder.

Among 205 women initially randomized, 94 in each group completed the trial, either inserting 200 mg of micronized progesterone daily with a vaginal suppository or receiving 250 mg of weekly intramuscular injections of 17-OHPC from 16 to 36 weeks’ gestation. The only significant difference between the groups in demographics or clinical features was that the vaginal progesterone group had a higher proportion of multiple past preterm births (33%) compared with the 17-OHPC group (17%). Cervical length and use of cerclage were also similar between the groups.

Though 30.9% of the vaginal progesterone group delivered preterm before 37 weeks, compared with 38.3% in the 17-OHPC group, the difference was not significant (P =.28). There was a borderline statistical difference between gestational age at delivery: 37.4 weeks in the vaginal progesterone group versus 36.3 weeks in the 17-OHPC group (P =.047). Neonatal outcomes were clinically similar between the two groups. Therapy initiation did slightly differ between the groups, with an average start 1 gestational week earlier in the vaginal progesterone group (16.9 vs. 17.8, P =.001) and a higher proportion of patients in the 17-OHPC group initiating therapy after 20 weeks (16.5% vs. 2.2%, P =.001). Adherence was otherwise similar between the groups, and the groups reported similar rates and types of side effects.

The trial did not meet the primary endpoint of vaginal progesterone reducing risk of recurrent preterm birth by 50%, compared with 17-OHPC, but it may increase latency to delivery, Rupsa C. Boelig, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told attendees. Though this was the largest trial to compare vaginal progesterone with 17-OHPC for preventing preterm birth, it was underpowered to detect a difference in efficacy, to conduct subgroup analyses, and to assess secondary outcomes, Dr. Boelig noted. “Baseline difference in preterm birth risk may affect apparent relative efficacy of vaginal progesterone.”

Nevertheless, the “totality of evidence appears to be greater for vaginal progesterone,” Dr. Boelig said, making vaginal progesterone an acceptable alternative to 17-OHPC. ACOG recommendations currently include offering either, but SMFM recommendations only mention 17-OHPC.

It’s worth noting, however, that the future of 17-OHPC, a synthetic compound, compared with naturally occurring micronized progesterone, continues to be uncertain following a 2020 study that found no evidence of its efficacy, leading the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw its approval for prevention of preterm birth. ”These findings are important especially in light of the controversy surrounding 17-OHP,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at UCLA, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “It is also sometimes difficult for patients to commit to weekly 17-OHPC injections, which requires time and many doctors visits, as compared to vaginal progesterone, which patients can administer at home.” Since this study does not have a placebo group, “it does not address the question of the overall efficacy of either medication compared to a control,” Dr. Mei said. ”It is also a somewhat small patient population so the results may change with a larger population. The authors conclude it is worth readdressing the use of vaginal progesterone for these patients.”

Herman L. Hedriana, MD, professor and director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and the maternal-fetal medicine fellowship program at the University of California, Davis, also pointed out notable differences between the two compounds.

“One has to remember that the formulation and mechanism of action are very different between 17-OHPC and the vaginal application of micronized progesterone. We do not have enough data to say one is superior versus the other,” said Dr. Hedriana, who was not involved in the research. “With 17-OHPC, the mechanism of action appears to be influenced by how the drug is metabolized based on race and ethnicity makeup, and may be influence by epigenetics,” while the mechanism for vaginal progesterone is probably local “given it is applied directly next to the cervix; hence, the results are it is effective in short cervices.” But those differing mechanisms don’t change the clinical significance of the findings. “One can use vaginal progesterone or 17-OHPC based on patient preference and availability,” Dr. Hedriana said.

The researchers of both studies reported no personal financial or industry disclosures, though Dr. Boelig disclosed that she had taken 17-OHPC and had cerclages during both her pregnancies, which resulted in healthy children today. The PREEMPT trial was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The head-to-head trial was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Development, the March of Dimes, the EW Thrasher Foundation, the PhRMA Foundation, and Covis Pharma, who manufactures the 17-OHPC drug Makena.

This story was updated on 2/8/2022.

Low-dose aspirin may increase risk of postpartum bleeding if patients don’t discontinue its use at least 7 days before delivery, but it’s otherwise unclear whether its use increases bleeding risk, according to research presented Feb. 5 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“These findings were a little surprising to me because we have generally been taught that aspirin is safe to continue up until delivery with minimal risk,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “Theoretically it makes sense that it may increase bleeding risk, but multiple studies in the past analyzing its use with gynecological surgery show minimal risk, which was conferred to the obstetrical population as well.”

She noted, however, that patients prescribed low-dose aspirin already have risk factors that may increase their risk of postpartum bleeding, and the study’s finding of possible increased risk was not statistically significant after accounting for those confounders. “I wouldn’t change my practice management over it, but it does raise awareness that all interventions likely come with some risk,” Dr. Mei said.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are responsible for 6.6% of U.S. pregnancy-related deaths. The SMFM currently recommends low-dose aspirin starting at 12 weeks’ gestation in patients at high risk for preeclampsia, which includes people with multifetal gestation, chronic hypertension, pregestational diabetes, renal disease, autoimmune disease, or a history of preeclampsia. However, previous research has shown mixed results on the safety of low-dose aspirin in terms of bleeding risk, Kelsey White, MD, a second-year maternal-fetal medicine fellow of the Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told attendees.

This retrospective study compared a bleeding composite endpoint among those who did and did not take low-dose aspirin between January 2018 and April 2021. The composite included an estimated blood loss of greater than 1,000 mL, postpartum hemorrhage based on ICD-9/10 code diagnosis, and red blood cell transfusion. The researchers also compared bleeding risk within the aspirin group based on discontinuation at greater or less than 7 days before delivery.

Among 16,980 patients, 11.3% were prescribed low-dose aspirin. The patients prescribed low-dose aspirin significantly differed from those not prescribed it in all demographic and clinical characteristics except placenta accreta spectrum. The average age of the aspirin group was 39 years, compared with 24 years in the nonaspirin group (P < .01). More of the aspirin group patients were Hispanic and Black, and 52.3% of patients taking aspirin had a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², compared with 22.9% of the nonaspirin group. Rates of diabetes, lupus, fibroids, nonaspirin anticoagulation use, cesarean delivery, and preterm delivery were all greater in the aspirin group.

In addition, 43.9% of the patients in the aspirin group had a hypertensive disorder, including 20.2% with preeclampsia, compared with 17.1% with hypertensive disorders, including 6.2% with preeclampsia, in the group not taking aspirin (P < .0001). “This shows that a high-risk population was prescribed aspirin, which correlates to the recommended prescription guidelines,” Dr. White said.

The postpartum bleeding composite outcome occurred in 14.7% of patients in the low-dose aspirin group, compared with 9.2% of patients in the nonaspirin group, for an unadjusted 1.7 times greater risk of bleeding (95% confidence interval, 1.49-1.96). After adjustment for confounders, the risk declined and was no longer statistically significant (aOR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98-1.34).

Meanwhile, 15% of those who discontinued aspirin within 7 days of delivery had postpartum bleeding, compared with 9% of those who discontinued aspirin at 7 or more days before delivery (P = .03).

Therefore, while the study found only a possible, nonsignificant association between low-dose aspirin and postpartum bleeding, risk of bleeding was significantly greater among those who discontinued aspirin only in the last week before delivery.

”Our study is timely and supports a recent Swedish study [that] found an increased risk of intrapartum bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage, and postpartum hematoma,” Dr. White said. She also noted that the United States Preventive Services Task Force changed their recommendation in 2021 for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis for cardiovascular disease.

“They now recommend against the use of low-dose aspirin for prevention in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. White said. “The change in recommendations came after recent randomized control trials showed that low-dose aspirin had very little benefit and may increase the risk of bleeding.”

However, Dr. White added that they “do not believe this study should be used to make any clinical decisions.” While the study had a large sample size, it was limited by its retrospective reliance on EMR data, including the EMR medication list, and the researchers couldn’t assess patient compliance or patient use of over-the-counter aspirin not recorded in the EMR.

Deirdre Lyell, MD, a professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed that the findings should not impact clinical practice given its limitations.

“The investigators could not entirely identify who stopped low-dose aspirin and when. When they estimated timing of stoppage of low-dose aspirin, their data suggested a small benefit among those who discontinued it at least 7 days before delivery, though this should be interpreted with caution, given the potential inaccuracy in these data,” Dr. Lyell, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “Their study did not examine factors that should be used to confirm if there are real differences in blood loss, such as changes in blood counts before and after delivery, or more use of medications that we use to stop heavy bleeding.”

In fact, Dr. Lyell noted, other research at the SMFM meeting found ”that low-dose aspirin is not used frequently enough in patients who might benefit, such as those at high risk for preeclampsia,” she said. ”Low-dose aspirin among those at increased risk has been shown to reduce rates of preeclampsia, reducing the likelihood of risky situations for moms and babies.”

The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Lyell has consulted for Bloomlife, a uterine contraction and fetal monitor. Dr. White and Dr. Mei had no disclosures.
 

Low-dose aspirin may increase risk of postpartum bleeding if patients don’t discontinue its use at least 7 days before delivery, but it’s otherwise unclear whether its use increases bleeding risk, according to research presented Feb. 5 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“These findings were a little surprising to me because we have generally been taught that aspirin is safe to continue up until delivery with minimal risk,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “Theoretically it makes sense that it may increase bleeding risk, but multiple studies in the past analyzing its use with gynecological surgery show minimal risk, which was conferred to the obstetrical population as well.”

She noted, however, that patients prescribed low-dose aspirin already have risk factors that may increase their risk of postpartum bleeding, and the study’s finding of possible increased risk was not statistically significant after accounting for those confounders. “I wouldn’t change my practice management over it, but it does raise awareness that all interventions likely come with some risk,” Dr. Mei said.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are responsible for 6.6% of U.S. pregnancy-related deaths. The SMFM currently recommends low-dose aspirin starting at 12 weeks’ gestation in patients at high risk for preeclampsia, which includes people with multifetal gestation, chronic hypertension, pregestational diabetes, renal disease, autoimmune disease, or a history of preeclampsia. However, previous research has shown mixed results on the safety of low-dose aspirin in terms of bleeding risk, Kelsey White, MD, a second-year maternal-fetal medicine fellow of the Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told attendees.

This retrospective study compared a bleeding composite endpoint among those who did and did not take low-dose aspirin between January 2018 and April 2021. The composite included an estimated blood loss of greater than 1,000 mL, postpartum hemorrhage based on ICD-9/10 code diagnosis, and red blood cell transfusion. The researchers also compared bleeding risk within the aspirin group based on discontinuation at greater or less than 7 days before delivery.

Among 16,980 patients, 11.3% were prescribed low-dose aspirin. The patients prescribed low-dose aspirin significantly differed from those not prescribed it in all demographic and clinical characteristics except placenta accreta spectrum. The average age of the aspirin group was 39 years, compared with 24 years in the nonaspirin group (P < .01). More of the aspirin group patients were Hispanic and Black, and 52.3% of patients taking aspirin had a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², compared with 22.9% of the nonaspirin group. Rates of diabetes, lupus, fibroids, nonaspirin anticoagulation use, cesarean delivery, and preterm delivery were all greater in the aspirin group.

In addition, 43.9% of the patients in the aspirin group had a hypertensive disorder, including 20.2% with preeclampsia, compared with 17.1% with hypertensive disorders, including 6.2% with preeclampsia, in the group not taking aspirin (P < .0001). “This shows that a high-risk population was prescribed aspirin, which correlates to the recommended prescription guidelines,” Dr. White said.

The postpartum bleeding composite outcome occurred in 14.7% of patients in the low-dose aspirin group, compared with 9.2% of patients in the nonaspirin group, for an unadjusted 1.7 times greater risk of bleeding (95% confidence interval, 1.49-1.96). After adjustment for confounders, the risk declined and was no longer statistically significant (aOR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98-1.34).

Meanwhile, 15% of those who discontinued aspirin within 7 days of delivery had postpartum bleeding, compared with 9% of those who discontinued aspirin at 7 or more days before delivery (P = .03).

Therefore, while the study found only a possible, nonsignificant association between low-dose aspirin and postpartum bleeding, risk of bleeding was significantly greater among those who discontinued aspirin only in the last week before delivery.

”Our study is timely and supports a recent Swedish study [that] found an increased risk of intrapartum bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage, and postpartum hematoma,” Dr. White said. She also noted that the United States Preventive Services Task Force changed their recommendation in 2021 for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis for cardiovascular disease.

“They now recommend against the use of low-dose aspirin for prevention in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. White said. “The change in recommendations came after recent randomized control trials showed that low-dose aspirin had very little benefit and may increase the risk of bleeding.”

However, Dr. White added that they “do not believe this study should be used to make any clinical decisions.” While the study had a large sample size, it was limited by its retrospective reliance on EMR data, including the EMR medication list, and the researchers couldn’t assess patient compliance or patient use of over-the-counter aspirin not recorded in the EMR.

Deirdre Lyell, MD, a professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed that the findings should not impact clinical practice given its limitations.

“The investigators could not entirely identify who stopped low-dose aspirin and when. When they estimated timing of stoppage of low-dose aspirin, their data suggested a small benefit among those who discontinued it at least 7 days before delivery, though this should be interpreted with caution, given the potential inaccuracy in these data,” Dr. Lyell, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “Their study did not examine factors that should be used to confirm if there are real differences in blood loss, such as changes in blood counts before and after delivery, or more use of medications that we use to stop heavy bleeding.”

In fact, Dr. Lyell noted, other research at the SMFM meeting found ”that low-dose aspirin is not used frequently enough in patients who might benefit, such as those at high risk for preeclampsia,” she said. ”Low-dose aspirin among those at increased risk has been shown to reduce rates of preeclampsia, reducing the likelihood of risky situations for moms and babies.”

The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Lyell has consulted for Bloomlife, a uterine contraction and fetal monitor. Dr. White and Dr. Mei had no disclosures.
 

Low-dose aspirin may increase risk of postpartum bleeding if patients don’t discontinue its use at least 7 days before delivery, but it’s otherwise unclear whether its use increases bleeding risk, according to research presented Feb. 5 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“These findings were a little surprising to me because we have generally been taught that aspirin is safe to continue up until delivery with minimal risk,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “Theoretically it makes sense that it may increase bleeding risk, but multiple studies in the past analyzing its use with gynecological surgery show minimal risk, which was conferred to the obstetrical population as well.”

She noted, however, that patients prescribed low-dose aspirin already have risk factors that may increase their risk of postpartum bleeding, and the study’s finding of possible increased risk was not statistically significant after accounting for those confounders. “I wouldn’t change my practice management over it, but it does raise awareness that all interventions likely come with some risk,” Dr. Mei said.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are responsible for 6.6% of U.S. pregnancy-related deaths. The SMFM currently recommends low-dose aspirin starting at 12 weeks’ gestation in patients at high risk for preeclampsia, which includes people with multifetal gestation, chronic hypertension, pregestational diabetes, renal disease, autoimmune disease, or a history of preeclampsia. However, previous research has shown mixed results on the safety of low-dose aspirin in terms of bleeding risk, Kelsey White, MD, a second-year maternal-fetal medicine fellow of the Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told attendees.

This retrospective study compared a bleeding composite endpoint among those who did and did not take low-dose aspirin between January 2018 and April 2021. The composite included an estimated blood loss of greater than 1,000 mL, postpartum hemorrhage based on ICD-9/10 code diagnosis, and red blood cell transfusion. The researchers also compared bleeding risk within the aspirin group based on discontinuation at greater or less than 7 days before delivery.

Among 16,980 patients, 11.3% were prescribed low-dose aspirin. The patients prescribed low-dose aspirin significantly differed from those not prescribed it in all demographic and clinical characteristics except placenta accreta spectrum. The average age of the aspirin group was 39 years, compared with 24 years in the nonaspirin group (P < .01). More of the aspirin group patients were Hispanic and Black, and 52.3% of patients taking aspirin had a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², compared with 22.9% of the nonaspirin group. Rates of diabetes, lupus, fibroids, nonaspirin anticoagulation use, cesarean delivery, and preterm delivery were all greater in the aspirin group.

In addition, 43.9% of the patients in the aspirin group had a hypertensive disorder, including 20.2% with preeclampsia, compared with 17.1% with hypertensive disorders, including 6.2% with preeclampsia, in the group not taking aspirin (P < .0001). “This shows that a high-risk population was prescribed aspirin, which correlates to the recommended prescription guidelines,” Dr. White said.

The postpartum bleeding composite outcome occurred in 14.7% of patients in the low-dose aspirin group, compared with 9.2% of patients in the nonaspirin group, for an unadjusted 1.7 times greater risk of bleeding (95% confidence interval, 1.49-1.96). After adjustment for confounders, the risk declined and was no longer statistically significant (aOR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98-1.34).

Meanwhile, 15% of those who discontinued aspirin within 7 days of delivery had postpartum bleeding, compared with 9% of those who discontinued aspirin at 7 or more days before delivery (P = .03).

Therefore, while the study found only a possible, nonsignificant association between low-dose aspirin and postpartum bleeding, risk of bleeding was significantly greater among those who discontinued aspirin only in the last week before delivery.

”Our study is timely and supports a recent Swedish study [that] found an increased risk of intrapartum bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage, and postpartum hematoma,” Dr. White said. She also noted that the United States Preventive Services Task Force changed their recommendation in 2021 for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis for cardiovascular disease.

“They now recommend against the use of low-dose aspirin for prevention in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. White said. “The change in recommendations came after recent randomized control trials showed that low-dose aspirin had very little benefit and may increase the risk of bleeding.”

However, Dr. White added that they “do not believe this study should be used to make any clinical decisions.” While the study had a large sample size, it was limited by its retrospective reliance on EMR data, including the EMR medication list, and the researchers couldn’t assess patient compliance or patient use of over-the-counter aspirin not recorded in the EMR.

Deirdre Lyell, MD, a professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed that the findings should not impact clinical practice given its limitations.

“The investigators could not entirely identify who stopped low-dose aspirin and when. When they estimated timing of stoppage of low-dose aspirin, their data suggested a small benefit among those who discontinued it at least 7 days before delivery, though this should be interpreted with caution, given the potential inaccuracy in these data,” Dr. Lyell, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “Their study did not examine factors that should be used to confirm if there are real differences in blood loss, such as changes in blood counts before and after delivery, or more use of medications that we use to stop heavy bleeding.”

In fact, Dr. Lyell noted, other research at the SMFM meeting found ”that low-dose aspirin is not used frequently enough in patients who might benefit, such as those at high risk for preeclampsia,” she said. ”Low-dose aspirin among those at increased risk has been shown to reduce rates of preeclampsia, reducing the likelihood of risky situations for moms and babies.”

The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Lyell has consulted for Bloomlife, a uterine contraction and fetal monitor. Dr. White and Dr. Mei had no disclosures.