A single-use duodenoscope may reduce the risk of postendoscopic infections while maintaining a high level of user satisfaction, based on a recent multicenter case series study.

At six tertiary referral centers in the United States, seven expert endoscopists performed more than 70 procedures with disposable scopes, ultimately reporting a median satisfaction score of 9 out of 10, according to lead author Venkataraman Muthusamy, MD, of UCLA Health in Los Angeles, and colleagues.

Writing for Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the investigators noted that duodenoscope-related infections represent a serious threat to public health, particularly when considered in the context of antibiotic resistance and the high number of endoscopic procedures performed annually.

“Solutions to the duodenoscope contamination problem remain elusive,” the investigators wrote. “Evidence-based interventions are important to guard against labor-intensive measures that are unfeasible, unaffordable, and potentially ineffective.”

According to the investigators, routine culture surveillance and field investigations following suspected duodenoscope-related infections may fail to detect culprit bacteria or shortcomings in equipment reprocessing; and even when performed correctly, standard reprocessing can be insufficient.

“Using current reprocessing techniques, improved compliance with reprocessing guidelines is not a definitive solution because reusable duodenoscope contamination may be present even after high-level disinfection or sterilization,” the investigators wrote, going on to cite Food and Drug Administration–reported contamination rates of 5.4% for high-concern organisms.

To determine if a single-use endoscope could overcome such risks, the investigators first conducted preclinical testing with animal laboratories and simulations, finding that a single-use duodenoscope was comparable with three reusable scope models. The present study, which included 73 patients with normal pancreaticobiliary anatomy, evaluated clinical feasibility, safety, and performance. The single-use duodenoscope was a first-generation device by Boston Scientific named EXALT Model D.

Of the 73 patients, 13 underwent roll-in maneuvers and 60 underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The most common cause for ERCP was exchange or removal of biliary stent (55.0%), followed by evaluation of biliary defect or stricture (26.7%), then bile duct stone clearance (18.3%). The majority of ERCPs had an American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) procedural complexity grade of 2 (43.3%) or 3 (43.3%), while a minority were graded 1 (11.7%) or, most severe, 4 (1.7%).

Two ERCPs required crossover to a reusable duodenoscope for completion. In the first instance, crossover was needed because dilation of a biliary stricture was unsuccessful, with the endoscopist reporting difficulties maneuvering the disposable scope, possibly because of shaft stiffness. In the second case, crossover was elected because cannulation was unsuccessful with standard access techniques; however, cannulation also was not possible with the reusable scope, necessitating an alternative approach.

According to the investigators, safety signals were comparable with standard practice. No serious, scope-related adverse events were reported. Serious adverse events of any kind were relatively uncommon; three patients developed post-ERCP pancreatitis within 7 days of ERCP, one developed a postsphincterotomy bleed, and one had worsening of a preexisting infection that required hospitalization.

As described above, the endoscopists reported a median overall satisfaction score of 9 out of 10. Specifically, 17 out of 23 scored ERCP maneuvers (73.9%) received a median 5 out of 5 performance rating. Out of 1,289 total ratings, almost all (98.1%) received a performance rating of at least 3 out of 5. Low-scoring performance characteristics (receiving at least one “1” rating), included elevator function; aspects of positioning; visualization; image quality, brightness, or appearance; and ease and ability of passing ancillary devices through the channel of the single-use duodenoscope and into the papilla.

“The new device provides an alternative to reusable duodenoscopes that may harbor residual contamination despite appropriately implemented reprocessing,” the investigators concluded.

They also pointed out that switching to disposable scopes would not completely put an end to postendoscopic infections.

“The single-use duodenoscope is a timely and innovative option to improve exogenous infection control, and must be used with awareness of the continued risk of endogenous infection, with standard infection control precautions and continued diligence in the use of existing reusable devices,” they wrote.

The study was funded by Boston Scientific. The investigators reported additional relationships with Medtronic, Ethicon/Torax, CapsoVision, and others.

SOURCE: Muthusamy V et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.052.

A single-use duodenoscope may reduce the risk of postendoscopic infections while maintaining a high level of user satisfaction, based on a recent multicenter case series study.

At six tertiary referral centers in the United States, seven expert endoscopists performed more than 70 procedures with disposable scopes, ultimately reporting a median satisfaction score of 9 out of 10, according to lead author Venkataraman Muthusamy, MD, of UCLA Health in Los Angeles, and colleagues.

Writing for Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the investigators noted that duodenoscope-related infections represent a serious threat to public health, particularly when considered in the context of antibiotic resistance and the high number of endoscopic procedures performed annually.

“Solutions to the duodenoscope contamination problem remain elusive,” the investigators wrote. “Evidence-based interventions are important to guard against labor-intensive measures that are unfeasible, unaffordable, and potentially ineffective.”

According to the investigators, routine culture surveillance and field investigations following suspected duodenoscope-related infections may fail to detect culprit bacteria or shortcomings in equipment reprocessing; and even when performed correctly, standard reprocessing can be insufficient.

“Using current reprocessing techniques, improved compliance with reprocessing guidelines is not a definitive solution because reusable duodenoscope contamination may be present even after high-level disinfection or sterilization,” the investigators wrote, going on to cite Food and Drug Administration–reported contamination rates of 5.4% for high-concern organisms.

To determine if a single-use endoscope could overcome such risks, the investigators first conducted preclinical testing with animal laboratories and simulations, finding that a single-use duodenoscope was comparable with three reusable scope models. The present study, which included 73 patients with normal pancreaticobiliary anatomy, evaluated clinical feasibility, safety, and performance. The single-use duodenoscope was a first-generation device by Boston Scientific named EXALT Model D.

Of the 73 patients, 13 underwent roll-in maneuvers and 60 underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The most common cause for ERCP was exchange or removal of biliary stent (55.0%), followed by evaluation of biliary defect or stricture (26.7%), then bile duct stone clearance (18.3%). The majority of ERCPs had an American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) procedural complexity grade of 2 (43.3%) or 3 (43.3%), while a minority were graded 1 (11.7%) or, most severe, 4 (1.7%).

Two ERCPs required crossover to a reusable duodenoscope for completion. In the first instance, crossover was needed because dilation of a biliary stricture was unsuccessful, with the endoscopist reporting difficulties maneuvering the disposable scope, possibly because of shaft stiffness. In the second case, crossover was elected because cannulation was unsuccessful with standard access techniques; however, cannulation also was not possible with the reusable scope, necessitating an alternative approach.

According to the investigators, safety signals were comparable with standard practice. No serious, scope-related adverse events were reported. Serious adverse events of any kind were relatively uncommon; three patients developed post-ERCP pancreatitis within 7 days of ERCP, one developed a postsphincterotomy bleed, and one had worsening of a preexisting infection that required hospitalization.

As described above, the endoscopists reported a median overall satisfaction score of 9 out of 10. Specifically, 17 out of 23 scored ERCP maneuvers (73.9%) received a median 5 out of 5 performance rating. Out of 1,289 total ratings, almost all (98.1%) received a performance rating of at least 3 out of 5. Low-scoring performance characteristics (receiving at least one “1” rating), included elevator function; aspects of positioning; visualization; image quality, brightness, or appearance; and ease and ability of passing ancillary devices through the channel of the single-use duodenoscope and into the papilla.

“The new device provides an alternative to reusable duodenoscopes that may harbor residual contamination despite appropriately implemented reprocessing,” the investigators concluded.

They also pointed out that switching to disposable scopes would not completely put an end to postendoscopic infections.

“The single-use duodenoscope is a timely and innovative option to improve exogenous infection control, and must be used with awareness of the continued risk of endogenous infection, with standard infection control precautions and continued diligence in the use of existing reusable devices,” they wrote.

The study was funded by Boston Scientific. The investigators reported additional relationships with Medtronic, Ethicon/Torax, CapsoVision, and others.

SOURCE: Muthusamy V et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.052.

A single-use duodenoscope may reduce the risk of postendoscopic infections while maintaining a high level of user satisfaction, based on a recent multicenter case series study.

At six tertiary referral centers in the United States, seven expert endoscopists performed more than 70 procedures with disposable scopes, ultimately reporting a median satisfaction score of 9 out of 10, according to lead author Venkataraman Muthusamy, MD, of UCLA Health in Los Angeles, and colleagues.

Writing for Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the investigators noted that duodenoscope-related infections represent a serious threat to public health, particularly when considered in the context of antibiotic resistance and the high number of endoscopic procedures performed annually.

“Solutions to the duodenoscope contamination problem remain elusive,” the investigators wrote. “Evidence-based interventions are important to guard against labor-intensive measures that are unfeasible, unaffordable, and potentially ineffective.”

According to the investigators, routine culture surveillance and field investigations following suspected duodenoscope-related infections may fail to detect culprit bacteria or shortcomings in equipment reprocessing; and even when performed correctly, standard reprocessing can be insufficient.

“Using current reprocessing techniques, improved compliance with reprocessing guidelines is not a definitive solution because reusable duodenoscope contamination may be present even after high-level disinfection or sterilization,” the investigators wrote, going on to cite Food and Drug Administration–reported contamination rates of 5.4% for high-concern organisms.

To determine if a single-use endoscope could overcome such risks, the investigators first conducted preclinical testing with animal laboratories and simulations, finding that a single-use duodenoscope was comparable with three reusable scope models. The present study, which included 73 patients with normal pancreaticobiliary anatomy, evaluated clinical feasibility, safety, and performance. The single-use duodenoscope was a first-generation device by Boston Scientific named EXALT Model D.

Of the 73 patients, 13 underwent roll-in maneuvers and 60 underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The most common cause for ERCP was exchange or removal of biliary stent (55.0%), followed by evaluation of biliary defect or stricture (26.7%), then bile duct stone clearance (18.3%). The majority of ERCPs had an American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) procedural complexity grade of 2 (43.3%) or 3 (43.3%), while a minority were graded 1 (11.7%) or, most severe, 4 (1.7%).

Two ERCPs required crossover to a reusable duodenoscope for completion. In the first instance, crossover was needed because dilation of a biliary stricture was unsuccessful, with the endoscopist reporting difficulties maneuvering the disposable scope, possibly because of shaft stiffness. In the second case, crossover was elected because cannulation was unsuccessful with standard access techniques; however, cannulation also was not possible with the reusable scope, necessitating an alternative approach.

According to the investigators, safety signals were comparable with standard practice. No serious, scope-related adverse events were reported. Serious adverse events of any kind were relatively uncommon; three patients developed post-ERCP pancreatitis within 7 days of ERCP, one developed a postsphincterotomy bleed, and one had worsening of a preexisting infection that required hospitalization.

As described above, the endoscopists reported a median overall satisfaction score of 9 out of 10. Specifically, 17 out of 23 scored ERCP maneuvers (73.9%) received a median 5 out of 5 performance rating. Out of 1,289 total ratings, almost all (98.1%) received a performance rating of at least 3 out of 5. Low-scoring performance characteristics (receiving at least one “1” rating), included elevator function; aspects of positioning; visualization; image quality, brightness, or appearance; and ease and ability of passing ancillary devices through the channel of the single-use duodenoscope and into the papilla.

“The new device provides an alternative to reusable duodenoscopes that may harbor residual contamination despite appropriately implemented reprocessing,” the investigators concluded.

They also pointed out that switching to disposable scopes would not completely put an end to postendoscopic infections.

“The single-use duodenoscope is a timely and innovative option to improve exogenous infection control, and must be used with awareness of the continued risk of endogenous infection, with standard infection control precautions and continued diligence in the use of existing reusable devices,” they wrote.

The study was funded by Boston Scientific. The investigators reported additional relationships with Medtronic, Ethicon/Torax, CapsoVision, and others.

SOURCE: Muthusamy V et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.052.

PHILADELPHIA – The overall costs of icosapent ethyl were less than placebo, and the medication reduced cardiovascular events by 30% at a cost that fits well within acceptable quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) parameters, according to a cost-effectiveness analysis of the REDUCE-IT trial.

Days before the presentation of the analysis at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel unanimously recommended approval of icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) for a new indication for reducing CV event risk. Icosapent ethyl, a highly purified form of the ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid derived from fish oil, received FDA approval in 2012 for treatment of triglyceride levels of at least 500 mg/dL.

“What we found here is that icosapent ethyl is a dominant strategy,” said William S. Weintraub, MD, director of outcomes research at MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute in Washington, in reporting preliminary cost-analysis findings from REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl – Intervention Trial). “It’s offering better outcomes at a lower cost.”

The dominant strategy was demonstrated by cost savings in 70% of simulations the cost-effectiveness analysis ran, Dr. Weintraub said.

“These are very impressive results,” said session moderator Seth S. Martin, MD, an internist and cardiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “We don’t often see dominant strategies for new drugs. This is very exciting.”

“Almost never,” Dr. Weintraub responded.

REDUCE-IT randomized 8,179 patients with a diagnosis of CVD or with diabetes and other risk factors who had been on statins and had triglycerides of 135-499 mg/dL to either 4 g of icosapent ethyl daily or placebo (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:11-22). Trial results showed the treatment group had an absolute risk reduction of 4.8% and a relative risk reduction of 25% of first CV events and a 30% relative risk reduction for total events, Dr. Weintraub said.

The analysis determined that the QALYs for icosapent ethyl versus those for placebo were 3.34 and 3.27, respectively, during the trial period and 11.61 and 11.35 over a lifetime. The mean costs for the two treatments were $27,576 and $28,205 during the trial period and $235,352 and $236,636 lifetime, respectively, Dr. Weintraub said.

An analysis of cost effectiveness showed that almost all of the estimates fell below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained, Dr. Weintraub said. “In fact, some 70% plus are in what’s called quadrant two; that is, decreased cost and increased efficacy.”

The analysis also calculated the value of icosapent ethyl at three different WTP thresholds: up to $6 a day at a WTP of $50,000, up to $12 a day at $100,000, and up to $18 a day at $150,000. The analysis used the actual net pricing of $4.16 a day, Dr. Weintraub said. “That’s why we showed we have the dominant strategy,” he said.

Further cost-effectiveness analyses of the REDUCE-IT data will focus on subgroups, such as U.S. and non–U.S. patients and people with diabetes. He also emphasized the data he reported were preliminary. “We have a lot more work to do,” Dr. Weintraub said.

Dr. Weintraub reported having financial relationships with Amarin Pharma, which markets Vascepa, and AstraZeneca.

SOURCE: Weintraub WS. AHA 2019, Session FS.AOS.F1.
 

PHILADELPHIA – The overall costs of icosapent ethyl were less than placebo, and the medication reduced cardiovascular events by 30% at a cost that fits well within acceptable quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) parameters, according to a cost-effectiveness analysis of the REDUCE-IT trial.

Days before the presentation of the analysis at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel unanimously recommended approval of icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) for a new indication for reducing CV event risk. Icosapent ethyl, a highly purified form of the ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid derived from fish oil, received FDA approval in 2012 for treatment of triglyceride levels of at least 500 mg/dL.

“What we found here is that icosapent ethyl is a dominant strategy,” said William S. Weintraub, MD, director of outcomes research at MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute in Washington, in reporting preliminary cost-analysis findings from REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl – Intervention Trial). “It’s offering better outcomes at a lower cost.”

The dominant strategy was demonstrated by cost savings in 70% of simulations the cost-effectiveness analysis ran, Dr. Weintraub said.

“These are very impressive results,” said session moderator Seth S. Martin, MD, an internist and cardiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “We don’t often see dominant strategies for new drugs. This is very exciting.”

“Almost never,” Dr. Weintraub responded.

REDUCE-IT randomized 8,179 patients with a diagnosis of CVD or with diabetes and other risk factors who had been on statins and had triglycerides of 135-499 mg/dL to either 4 g of icosapent ethyl daily or placebo (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:11-22). Trial results showed the treatment group had an absolute risk reduction of 4.8% and a relative risk reduction of 25% of first CV events and a 30% relative risk reduction for total events, Dr. Weintraub said.

The analysis determined that the QALYs for icosapent ethyl versus those for placebo were 3.34 and 3.27, respectively, during the trial period and 11.61 and 11.35 over a lifetime. The mean costs for the two treatments were $27,576 and $28,205 during the trial period and $235,352 and $236,636 lifetime, respectively, Dr. Weintraub said.

An analysis of cost effectiveness showed that almost all of the estimates fell below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained, Dr. Weintraub said. “In fact, some 70% plus are in what’s called quadrant two; that is, decreased cost and increased efficacy.”

The analysis also calculated the value of icosapent ethyl at three different WTP thresholds: up to $6 a day at a WTP of $50,000, up to $12 a day at $100,000, and up to $18 a day at $150,000. The analysis used the actual net pricing of $4.16 a day, Dr. Weintraub said. “That’s why we showed we have the dominant strategy,” he said.

Further cost-effectiveness analyses of the REDUCE-IT data will focus on subgroups, such as U.S. and non–U.S. patients and people with diabetes. He also emphasized the data he reported were preliminary. “We have a lot more work to do,” Dr. Weintraub said.

Dr. Weintraub reported having financial relationships with Amarin Pharma, which markets Vascepa, and AstraZeneca.

SOURCE: Weintraub WS. AHA 2019, Session FS.AOS.F1.
 

PHILADELPHIA – The overall costs of icosapent ethyl were less than placebo, and the medication reduced cardiovascular events by 30% at a cost that fits well within acceptable quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) parameters, according to a cost-effectiveness analysis of the REDUCE-IT trial.

Days before the presentation of the analysis at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel unanimously recommended approval of icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) for a new indication for reducing CV event risk. Icosapent ethyl, a highly purified form of the ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid derived from fish oil, received FDA approval in 2012 for treatment of triglyceride levels of at least 500 mg/dL.

“What we found here is that icosapent ethyl is a dominant strategy,” said William S. Weintraub, MD, director of outcomes research at MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute in Washington, in reporting preliminary cost-analysis findings from REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl – Intervention Trial). “It’s offering better outcomes at a lower cost.”

The dominant strategy was demonstrated by cost savings in 70% of simulations the cost-effectiveness analysis ran, Dr. Weintraub said.

“These are very impressive results,” said session moderator Seth S. Martin, MD, an internist and cardiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “We don’t often see dominant strategies for new drugs. This is very exciting.”

“Almost never,” Dr. Weintraub responded.

REDUCE-IT randomized 8,179 patients with a diagnosis of CVD or with diabetes and other risk factors who had been on statins and had triglycerides of 135-499 mg/dL to either 4 g of icosapent ethyl daily or placebo (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:11-22). Trial results showed the treatment group had an absolute risk reduction of 4.8% and a relative risk reduction of 25% of first CV events and a 30% relative risk reduction for total events, Dr. Weintraub said.

The analysis determined that the QALYs for icosapent ethyl versus those for placebo were 3.34 and 3.27, respectively, during the trial period and 11.61 and 11.35 over a lifetime. The mean costs for the two treatments were $27,576 and $28,205 during the trial period and $235,352 and $236,636 lifetime, respectively, Dr. Weintraub said.

An analysis of cost effectiveness showed that almost all of the estimates fell below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained, Dr. Weintraub said. “In fact, some 70% plus are in what’s called quadrant two; that is, decreased cost and increased efficacy.”

The analysis also calculated the value of icosapent ethyl at three different WTP thresholds: up to $6 a day at a WTP of $50,000, up to $12 a day at $100,000, and up to $18 a day at $150,000. The analysis used the actual net pricing of $4.16 a day, Dr. Weintraub said. “That’s why we showed we have the dominant strategy,” he said.

Further cost-effectiveness analyses of the REDUCE-IT data will focus on subgroups, such as U.S. and non–U.S. patients and people with diabetes. He also emphasized the data he reported were preliminary. “We have a lot more work to do,” Dr. Weintraub said.

Dr. Weintraub reported having financial relationships with Amarin Pharma, which markets Vascepa, and AstraZeneca.

SOURCE: Weintraub WS. AHA 2019, Session FS.AOS.F1.
 

Nearly one in five adolescents and one in four young adults in the United States have prediabetes, with a higher prevalence among males, a study has found.

copyright Martynasfoto/Thinkstock

Linda J. Andes, PhD, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and coauthors reported in JAMA Pediatrics their analysis of data from 2,606 adolescent (12-18 years) and 3,180 young adult (19-34 years) participants in the 2005-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys.

This found that the percentage with prediabetes – defined as either impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or increased hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) level – was 18% among adolescents and 24% among young adults.

The most common condition was IFG, which was seen in 11% of adolescents and 16% of young adults. The rate of IGT was 4% in adolescents and 6% of young adults, while elevated HbA_1c levels were seen in 5% of adolescents and 8% of young adults.

This information is important because “In adults, these three phenotypes increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes as well as cardiovascular diseases,” Dr. Andes and coauthors wrote. “In 2011-2012, the overall prevalence of prediabetes among U.S. adults, defined as the presence of any of the three glucose metabolism dysregulation phenotypes, was 38% and it increased to about 50% in persons 65 years and older.”

Dr. Andes and associates noted that isolated IFG was the most common glucose dysregulation seen in both adolescents and young adults. “While individuals with IFG are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes, few primary prevention trials have included individuals selected for the presence of IFG and none have been conducted in adolescents with IFG or IGT to our knowledge.”

The study saw some key gender differences in prevalence. For example, the prevalence of IFG was significantly lower in adolescent girls than in boys (7% vs. 15%; P less than .001), and in young women, compared with young men (10% vs. 22%; P less than .001).

“These findings are consistent with those of other studies in adults; however, the underlying mechanisms for explaining this discrepancy are still unclear,” Dr. Andes and coauthors wrote.

Ethnicity also appeared to influence risk, with the prevalence of IFG significantly lower in non-Hispanic black adolescents, compared with Hispanic adolescents. However, increased HbA_1c levels were significantly more prevalent in non-Hispanic black adolescents, compared with Hispanic or non-Hispanic white adolescents.

“These findings highlight the need for additional studies on the long-term consequences and preventive strategies of abnormal glucose metabolism as measured by HbA_1c levels in adolescents and young adults, especially of minority racial/ethnic groups,” the authors wrote.

Adolescents with prediabetes had significantly higher systolic blood pressure, non-HDL cholesterol, waist-to-height ratio, higher body mass index, and lower insulin sensitivity, compared with those with normal glucose tolerance. Among young adults with prediabetes, there was significantly higher systolic blood pressure and non-HDL cholesterol, compared with individuals with normal glucose tolerance.

No funding or conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Andes LJ et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Dec 2. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.4498.

Nearly one in five adolescents and one in four young adults in the United States have prediabetes, with a higher prevalence among males, a study has found.

copyright Martynasfoto/Thinkstock

Linda J. Andes, PhD, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and coauthors reported in JAMA Pediatrics their analysis of data from 2,606 adolescent (12-18 years) and 3,180 young adult (19-34 years) participants in the 2005-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys.

This found that the percentage with prediabetes – defined as either impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or increased hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) level – was 18% among adolescents and 24% among young adults.

The most common condition was IFG, which was seen in 11% of adolescents and 16% of young adults. The rate of IGT was 4% in adolescents and 6% of young adults, while elevated HbA_1c levels were seen in 5% of adolescents and 8% of young adults.

This information is important because “In adults, these three phenotypes increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes as well as cardiovascular diseases,” Dr. Andes and coauthors wrote. “In 2011-2012, the overall prevalence of prediabetes among U.S. adults, defined as the presence of any of the three glucose metabolism dysregulation phenotypes, was 38% and it increased to about 50% in persons 65 years and older.”

Dr. Andes and associates noted that isolated IFG was the most common glucose dysregulation seen in both adolescents and young adults. “While individuals with IFG are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes, few primary prevention trials have included individuals selected for the presence of IFG and none have been conducted in adolescents with IFG or IGT to our knowledge.”

The study saw some key gender differences in prevalence. For example, the prevalence of IFG was significantly lower in adolescent girls than in boys (7% vs. 15%; P less than .001), and in young women, compared with young men (10% vs. 22%; P less than .001).

“These findings are consistent with those of other studies in adults; however, the underlying mechanisms for explaining this discrepancy are still unclear,” Dr. Andes and coauthors wrote.

Ethnicity also appeared to influence risk, with the prevalence of IFG significantly lower in non-Hispanic black adolescents, compared with Hispanic adolescents. However, increased HbA_1c levels were significantly more prevalent in non-Hispanic black adolescents, compared with Hispanic or non-Hispanic white adolescents.

“These findings highlight the need for additional studies on the long-term consequences and preventive strategies of abnormal glucose metabolism as measured by HbA_1c levels in adolescents and young adults, especially of minority racial/ethnic groups,” the authors wrote.

Adolescents with prediabetes had significantly higher systolic blood pressure, non-HDL cholesterol, waist-to-height ratio, higher body mass index, and lower insulin sensitivity, compared with those with normal glucose tolerance. Among young adults with prediabetes, there was significantly higher systolic blood pressure and non-HDL cholesterol, compared with individuals with normal glucose tolerance.

No funding or conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Andes LJ et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Dec 2. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.4498.

Nearly one in five adolescents and one in four young adults in the United States have prediabetes, with a higher prevalence among males, a study has found.

copyright Martynasfoto/Thinkstock

Linda J. Andes, PhD, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and coauthors reported in JAMA Pediatrics their analysis of data from 2,606 adolescent (12-18 years) and 3,180 young adult (19-34 years) participants in the 2005-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys.

This found that the percentage with prediabetes – defined as either impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or increased hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) level – was 18% among adolescents and 24% among young adults.

The most common condition was IFG, which was seen in 11% of adolescents and 16% of young adults. The rate of IGT was 4% in adolescents and 6% of young adults, while elevated HbA_1c levels were seen in 5% of adolescents and 8% of young adults.

This information is important because “In adults, these three phenotypes increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes as well as cardiovascular diseases,” Dr. Andes and coauthors wrote. “In 2011-2012, the overall prevalence of prediabetes among U.S. adults, defined as the presence of any of the three glucose metabolism dysregulation phenotypes, was 38% and it increased to about 50% in persons 65 years and older.”

Dr. Andes and associates noted that isolated IFG was the most common glucose dysregulation seen in both adolescents and young adults. “While individuals with IFG are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes, few primary prevention trials have included individuals selected for the presence of IFG and none have been conducted in adolescents with IFG or IGT to our knowledge.”

The study saw some key gender differences in prevalence. For example, the prevalence of IFG was significantly lower in adolescent girls than in boys (7% vs. 15%; P less than .001), and in young women, compared with young men (10% vs. 22%; P less than .001).

“These findings are consistent with those of other studies in adults; however, the underlying mechanisms for explaining this discrepancy are still unclear,” Dr. Andes and coauthors wrote.

Ethnicity also appeared to influence risk, with the prevalence of IFG significantly lower in non-Hispanic black adolescents, compared with Hispanic adolescents. However, increased HbA_1c levels were significantly more prevalent in non-Hispanic black adolescents, compared with Hispanic or non-Hispanic white adolescents.

“These findings highlight the need for additional studies on the long-term consequences and preventive strategies of abnormal glucose metabolism as measured by HbA_1c levels in adolescents and young adults, especially of minority racial/ethnic groups,” the authors wrote.

Adolescents with prediabetes had significantly higher systolic blood pressure, non-HDL cholesterol, waist-to-height ratio, higher body mass index, and lower insulin sensitivity, compared with those with normal glucose tolerance. Among young adults with prediabetes, there was significantly higher systolic blood pressure and non-HDL cholesterol, compared with individuals with normal glucose tolerance.

No funding or conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Andes LJ et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Dec 2. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.4498.

SAN ANTONIO – Three-quarters of gastroenterologists who participated in an American College of Gastroenterology–sponsored national survey indicated they have experienced endoscopy-related musculoskeletal injuries, Swati Pawa, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Moreover, most respondents said they received zero training in ergonomic strategies for endoscopy-related injury (ERI) prevention during their fellowship training. And there’s been none since. Eighty-one percent of respondents indicated they would welcome such training, added Dr. Pawa, a gastroenterologist at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

The survey results expose a glaring unmet need in clinical practice, she said: “There have been no published guidelines from any of the major professional GI societies to date addressing how to prevent endoscopy-related injuries.”

The 38-item survey was created by the ACG Women in GI Committee and sponsored by the ACG governing board.

Among the key findings was the identification of sex differences in the types of ERIs reported, which suggests different contributory mechanisms. For example, female gastroenterologists were more likely than were their male colleagues to have experienced ERIs involving the upper back, by a margin of 49% to 36%. Upper extremity pain was more common among the women, too, with 63% reporting hand or finger pain, compared with 53% of men. Twenty-four percent of women reported carpal tunnel syndrome and an equal percentage developed tendonitis, compared with 18% and 17% of men, respectively.

Seventy-one percent of women attributed their ERI to torquing with their right hand, as did 63% of men. Women also more frequently cited having to deal with a nonadjustable bed or monitor as contributing to injury. In contrast, roughly twice as many men as women attributed their ERI to wearing a lead apron or use of the elevator on the duodenoscope.

Equally common causes of ERIs in men and women included standing in awkward positions while supporting an endoscope, standing for a long time, and adjusting tip angulation with the left hand.

Male and female gastroenterologists differed in their practice patterns. The men had been performing endoscopy for a mean of 23 years, compared with 13 years for the women. Fifty-six percent of the men were in private practice, compared with 35% of the women. In contrast, 43% of the women worked in academic settings versus 28% of the men. Thirty percent of the male gastroenterologists characterized themselves as interventional specialists, a rate more than twice that in women, who more commonly specialized in inflammatory bowel disease.

The survey was sent to nearly 16,000 ACG members. It generated a 14% response rate. Roughly two-thirds of responses were provided by male gastroenterologists.

Dr. Pawa and her coinvestigators are now drilling down through the survey data in an effort to identify an appropriate endoscopy workload limit that’s associated with reduced ERI risk.

One audience member commented, “The incidence of ERI in your survey is much higher than most of us would expect.” He speculated that response bias might be at work, with gastroenterologists who have personally experienced an ERI being perhaps more highly motivated to be among the 14% who completed the 38-question survey. Dr. Pawa replied that the survey figures are in line with other, smaller studies.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – Three-quarters of gastroenterologists who participated in an American College of Gastroenterology–sponsored national survey indicated they have experienced endoscopy-related musculoskeletal injuries, Swati Pawa, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Moreover, most respondents said they received zero training in ergonomic strategies for endoscopy-related injury (ERI) prevention during their fellowship training. And there’s been none since. Eighty-one percent of respondents indicated they would welcome such training, added Dr. Pawa, a gastroenterologist at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

The survey results expose a glaring unmet need in clinical practice, she said: “There have been no published guidelines from any of the major professional GI societies to date addressing how to prevent endoscopy-related injuries.”

The 38-item survey was created by the ACG Women in GI Committee and sponsored by the ACG governing board.

Among the key findings was the identification of sex differences in the types of ERIs reported, which suggests different contributory mechanisms. For example, female gastroenterologists were more likely than were their male colleagues to have experienced ERIs involving the upper back, by a margin of 49% to 36%. Upper extremity pain was more common among the women, too, with 63% reporting hand or finger pain, compared with 53% of men. Twenty-four percent of women reported carpal tunnel syndrome and an equal percentage developed tendonitis, compared with 18% and 17% of men, respectively.

Seventy-one percent of women attributed their ERI to torquing with their right hand, as did 63% of men. Women also more frequently cited having to deal with a nonadjustable bed or monitor as contributing to injury. In contrast, roughly twice as many men as women attributed their ERI to wearing a lead apron or use of the elevator on the duodenoscope.

Equally common causes of ERIs in men and women included standing in awkward positions while supporting an endoscope, standing for a long time, and adjusting tip angulation with the left hand.

Male and female gastroenterologists differed in their practice patterns. The men had been performing endoscopy for a mean of 23 years, compared with 13 years for the women. Fifty-six percent of the men were in private practice, compared with 35% of the women. In contrast, 43% of the women worked in academic settings versus 28% of the men. Thirty percent of the male gastroenterologists characterized themselves as interventional specialists, a rate more than twice that in women, who more commonly specialized in inflammatory bowel disease.

The survey was sent to nearly 16,000 ACG members. It generated a 14% response rate. Roughly two-thirds of responses were provided by male gastroenterologists.

Dr. Pawa and her coinvestigators are now drilling down through the survey data in an effort to identify an appropriate endoscopy workload limit that’s associated with reduced ERI risk.

One audience member commented, “The incidence of ERI in your survey is much higher than most of us would expect.” He speculated that response bias might be at work, with gastroenterologists who have personally experienced an ERI being perhaps more highly motivated to be among the 14% who completed the 38-question survey. Dr. Pawa replied that the survey figures are in line with other, smaller studies.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – Three-quarters of gastroenterologists who participated in an American College of Gastroenterology–sponsored national survey indicated they have experienced endoscopy-related musculoskeletal injuries, Swati Pawa, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Moreover, most respondents said they received zero training in ergonomic strategies for endoscopy-related injury (ERI) prevention during their fellowship training. And there’s been none since. Eighty-one percent of respondents indicated they would welcome such training, added Dr. Pawa, a gastroenterologist at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

The survey results expose a glaring unmet need in clinical practice, she said: “There have been no published guidelines from any of the major professional GI societies to date addressing how to prevent endoscopy-related injuries.”

The 38-item survey was created by the ACG Women in GI Committee and sponsored by the ACG governing board.

Among the key findings was the identification of sex differences in the types of ERIs reported, which suggests different contributory mechanisms. For example, female gastroenterologists were more likely than were their male colleagues to have experienced ERIs involving the upper back, by a margin of 49% to 36%. Upper extremity pain was more common among the women, too, with 63% reporting hand or finger pain, compared with 53% of men. Twenty-four percent of women reported carpal tunnel syndrome and an equal percentage developed tendonitis, compared with 18% and 17% of men, respectively.

Seventy-one percent of women attributed their ERI to torquing with their right hand, as did 63% of men. Women also more frequently cited having to deal with a nonadjustable bed or monitor as contributing to injury. In contrast, roughly twice as many men as women attributed their ERI to wearing a lead apron or use of the elevator on the duodenoscope.

Equally common causes of ERIs in men and women included standing in awkward positions while supporting an endoscope, standing for a long time, and adjusting tip angulation with the left hand.

Male and female gastroenterologists differed in their practice patterns. The men had been performing endoscopy for a mean of 23 years, compared with 13 years for the women. Fifty-six percent of the men were in private practice, compared with 35% of the women. In contrast, 43% of the women worked in academic settings versus 28% of the men. Thirty percent of the male gastroenterologists characterized themselves as interventional specialists, a rate more than twice that in women, who more commonly specialized in inflammatory bowel disease.

The survey was sent to nearly 16,000 ACG members. It generated a 14% response rate. Roughly two-thirds of responses were provided by male gastroenterologists.

Dr. Pawa and her coinvestigators are now drilling down through the survey data in an effort to identify an appropriate endoscopy workload limit that’s associated with reduced ERI risk.

One audience member commented, “The incidence of ERI in your survey is much higher than most of us would expect.” He speculated that response bias might be at work, with gastroenterologists who have personally experienced an ERI being perhaps more highly motivated to be among the 14% who completed the 38-question survey. Dr. Pawa replied that the survey figures are in line with other, smaller studies.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

Individuals with autism spectrum disorder might be at significantly higher risk of bipolar disorder, anxiety, and depression, a new study suggests.

“This study supports the importance of early, ongoing surveillance, and targeted treatments to address the psychiatric needs of individuals with ASD,” wrote lead author Alexandra C. Kirsch, PhD, and associates. The report was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Dr. Kirsch and associates reported the outcomes of a population-based cohort study involving 1,014 individuals with autism spectrum disorder and 2,028 age-and sex-matched controls without autism spectrum disorder. They found that individuals with autism spectrum disorder were more than nine times more likely to be diagnosed with bipolar disorder, 2.81 times more likely to be diagnosed with depression, and 3.45 times more likely to be diagnosed with anxiety, compared with controls.

“Significant psychosocial sequelae associated with having ASD, including difficulties developing and maintaining relationships, challenges succeeding academically and vocationally, and behaviors that can be problematic to manage, particularly increase risk for mood and anxiety symptoms in individuals with ASD,” wrote Dr. Kirsch of the department of psychiatry and psychology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and associates. “Individuals with ASD also experience greater rates of other mental health challenges, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and substance abuse.”

Individuals with autism spectrum disorder who received a diagnosis of depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder also were more likely to be diagnosed at a younger age than were those without autism. In the case of depression, the median age of diagnosis was 15.7 years, compared with 18.1 years among controls. For anxiety, the median age of diagnosis among individuals with autism spectrum disorder was 15.2 years, compared with 20.3 years for controls. For bipolar disorder, it was 20.3 years, compared with 27 years although the small number of individuals meant this was not statistically significant.

The authors suggested that the earlier age at diagnosis might reflect that individuals with autism spectrum disorder generally are monitored more closely, and are more likely to be connected to screening and diagnostic resources because of their original diagnosis.

The researchers also found that the increased risk of depression and anxiety was even higher among men with autism spectrum disorder, even though the cumulative incidence of these conditions was greater in women both with and without autism. In addition, the researchers noted that individuals with autism spectrum disorder were more likely to be diagnosed with multiple psychiatric conditions than were those without autism.

Dr. Kirsch and associates cited several limitations. One is that the population studied came from Olmsted County, Minn., which is wealthier and less diverse than the general population. Nevertheless, the results could help guide treatments for patients with ASD.

“Given the high rates of comorbidity, researchers and practitioners should develop tools that are specific to the unique needs of this population and effective medications and treatments for mood and anxiety concerns, which remain limited in this population,” they wrote.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Public Health Service. No conflicts of interest were disclosed.

SOURCE: Kirsch A et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Dec 2. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.4368.

Individuals with autism spectrum disorder might be at significantly higher risk of bipolar disorder, anxiety, and depression, a new study suggests.

“This study supports the importance of early, ongoing surveillance, and targeted treatments to address the psychiatric needs of individuals with ASD,” wrote lead author Alexandra C. Kirsch, PhD, and associates. The report was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Dr. Kirsch and associates reported the outcomes of a population-based cohort study involving 1,014 individuals with autism spectrum disorder and 2,028 age-and sex-matched controls without autism spectrum disorder. They found that individuals with autism spectrum disorder were more than nine times more likely to be diagnosed with bipolar disorder, 2.81 times more likely to be diagnosed with depression, and 3.45 times more likely to be diagnosed with anxiety, compared with controls.

“Significant psychosocial sequelae associated with having ASD, including difficulties developing and maintaining relationships, challenges succeeding academically and vocationally, and behaviors that can be problematic to manage, particularly increase risk for mood and anxiety symptoms in individuals with ASD,” wrote Dr. Kirsch of the department of psychiatry and psychology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and associates. “Individuals with ASD also experience greater rates of other mental health challenges, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and substance abuse.”

Individuals with autism spectrum disorder who received a diagnosis of depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder also were more likely to be diagnosed at a younger age than were those without autism. In the case of depression, the median age of diagnosis was 15.7 years, compared with 18.1 years among controls. For anxiety, the median age of diagnosis among individuals with autism spectrum disorder was 15.2 years, compared with 20.3 years for controls. For bipolar disorder, it was 20.3 years, compared with 27 years although the small number of individuals meant this was not statistically significant.

The authors suggested that the earlier age at diagnosis might reflect that individuals with autism spectrum disorder generally are monitored more closely, and are more likely to be connected to screening and diagnostic resources because of their original diagnosis.

The researchers also found that the increased risk of depression and anxiety was even higher among men with autism spectrum disorder, even though the cumulative incidence of these conditions was greater in women both with and without autism. In addition, the researchers noted that individuals with autism spectrum disorder were more likely to be diagnosed with multiple psychiatric conditions than were those without autism.

Dr. Kirsch and associates cited several limitations. One is that the population studied came from Olmsted County, Minn., which is wealthier and less diverse than the general population. Nevertheless, the results could help guide treatments for patients with ASD.

“Given the high rates of comorbidity, researchers and practitioners should develop tools that are specific to the unique needs of this population and effective medications and treatments for mood and anxiety concerns, which remain limited in this population,” they wrote.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Public Health Service. No conflicts of interest were disclosed.

SOURCE: Kirsch A et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Dec 2. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.4368.

Individuals with autism spectrum disorder might be at significantly higher risk of bipolar disorder, anxiety, and depression, a new study suggests.

“This study supports the importance of early, ongoing surveillance, and targeted treatments to address the psychiatric needs of individuals with ASD,” wrote lead author Alexandra C. Kirsch, PhD, and associates. The report was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Dr. Kirsch and associates reported the outcomes of a population-based cohort study involving 1,014 individuals with autism spectrum disorder and 2,028 age-and sex-matched controls without autism spectrum disorder. They found that individuals with autism spectrum disorder were more than nine times more likely to be diagnosed with bipolar disorder, 2.81 times more likely to be diagnosed with depression, and 3.45 times more likely to be diagnosed with anxiety, compared with controls.

“Significant psychosocial sequelae associated with having ASD, including difficulties developing and maintaining relationships, challenges succeeding academically and vocationally, and behaviors that can be problematic to manage, particularly increase risk for mood and anxiety symptoms in individuals with ASD,” wrote Dr. Kirsch of the department of psychiatry and psychology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and associates. “Individuals with ASD also experience greater rates of other mental health challenges, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and substance abuse.”

Individuals with autism spectrum disorder who received a diagnosis of depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder also were more likely to be diagnosed at a younger age than were those without autism. In the case of depression, the median age of diagnosis was 15.7 years, compared with 18.1 years among controls. For anxiety, the median age of diagnosis among individuals with autism spectrum disorder was 15.2 years, compared with 20.3 years for controls. For bipolar disorder, it was 20.3 years, compared with 27 years although the small number of individuals meant this was not statistically significant.

The authors suggested that the earlier age at diagnosis might reflect that individuals with autism spectrum disorder generally are monitored more closely, and are more likely to be connected to screening and diagnostic resources because of their original diagnosis.

The researchers also found that the increased risk of depression and anxiety was even higher among men with autism spectrum disorder, even though the cumulative incidence of these conditions was greater in women both with and without autism. In addition, the researchers noted that individuals with autism spectrum disorder were more likely to be diagnosed with multiple psychiatric conditions than were those without autism.

Dr. Kirsch and associates cited several limitations. One is that the population studied came from Olmsted County, Minn., which is wealthier and less diverse than the general population. Nevertheless, the results could help guide treatments for patients with ASD.

“Given the high rates of comorbidity, researchers and practitioners should develop tools that are specific to the unique needs of this population and effective medications and treatments for mood and anxiety concerns, which remain limited in this population,” they wrote.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Public Health Service. No conflicts of interest were disclosed.

SOURCE: Kirsch A et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Dec 2. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.4368.

You have just safely delivered the baby who is quietly resting on her mother’s chest. You begin active management of the third stage of labor, administering oxytocin, performing uterine massage and applying controlled tension on the umbilical cord. There is no evidence of excess postpartum bleeding.

How long will you wait to deliver the placenta?

Active management of the third stage of labor

Most authorities recommend active management of the third stage of labor because active management reduces the risk of maternal hemorrhage >1,000 mL (relative risk [RR], 0.34), postpartum hemoglobin levels < 9 g/dL (RR, 0.50), and maternal blood transfusion (RR, 0.35) compared with expectant management.¹

The most important component of active management of the third stage of labor is the administration of a uterotonic after delivery of the newborn. In the United States, oxytocin is the uterotonic most often utilized for the active management of the third stage of labor. Authors of a recent randomized clinical trial reported that intravenous oxytocin is superior to intramuscular oxytocin for reducing postpartum blood loss (385 vs 445 mL), the frequency of blood loss greater than 1,000 mL (4.6% vs 8.1%), and the rate of maternal blood transfusion (1.5% vs 4.4%).²

In addition to administering oxytocin, the active management of the third stage often involves maneuvers to accelerate placental delivery, including the Crede and Brandt-Andrews maneuvers and controlled tension on the umbilical cord. The Crede maneuver, described in 1853, involves placing a hand on the abdominal wall near the uterine fundus and squeezing the uterine fundus between the thumb and fingers.^3,4

The Brandt-Andrews maneuver, described in 1933, involves placing a clamp on the umbilical cord close to the vulva.⁵ The clamp is used to apply judicious tension on the cord with one hand, while the other hand is placed on the mother’s abdomen with the palm and fingers overlying the junction between the uterine corpus and the lower segment. With judicious tension on the cord, the abdominal hand pushes the uterus upward toward the umbilicus. Placental separation is indicated when lengthening of the umbilical cord occurs. The Brandt-Andrews maneuver may be associated with fewer cases of uterine inversion than the Crede maneuver.^5-7

Of note, umbilical cord traction has not been demonstrated to reduce the need for blood transfusion or the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) >1,000 mL, and it is commonly utilized by obstetricians and midwives.^8,9 Hence, in the third stage, the delivering clinician should routinely administer a uterotonic, but use of judicious tension on the cord can be deferred if the woman prefers a noninterventional approach to delivery.

Following a vaginal birth, when should the diagnosis of retained placenta be made?

The historic definition of retained placenta is nonexpulsion of the placenta 30 minutes after delivery of the newborn. However, many observational studies report that, when active management of the third stage is utilized, 90%, 95%, and 99% of placentas deliver by 9 minutes, 13 minutes, and 28 minutes, respectively.¹⁰ In addition, many observational studies report that the incidence of PPH increases significantly with longer intervals between birth of the newborn and delivery of the placenta. In one study the rate of blood loss >500 mL was 8.5% when the placenta delivered between 5 and 9 minutes and 35.1% when the placenta delivered ≥30 minutes following birth of the baby.¹⁰ In another observational study, compared with women delivering the placenta < 10 minutes after birth, women delivering the placenta ≥30 minutes after birth had a 3-fold increased risk of PPH.¹¹ Similar findings have been reported in other studies.^12-14

Continue to: Based on the association between a delay in delivery...

Based on the association between a delay in delivery of the placenta and an increased risk of PPH, some authorities recommend that, in term pregnancy, the diagnosis of retained placenta should be made at 20 minutes following birth and consideration should be given to removing the placenta at this time. For women with effective neuraxial anesthesia, manual removal of the placenta 20 minutes following birth may be the best decision for balancing the benefit of preventing PPH with the risk of unnecessary intervention. For women with no anesthesia, delaying manual removal of the placenta to 30 minutes or more following birth may permit more time for the placenta to deliver prior to performing an intervention that might cause pain, but the delay increases the risk of PPH.

Beware of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, and be ready to recognize and treat uterine inversion

---

The retained placenta may prevent the uterine muscle from effectively contracting around penetrating veins and arteries, thereby increasing the risk of postpartum hemorrhage. The placenta that has separated from the uterine wall but is trapped inside the uterine cavity can be removed easily with manual extraction. If the placenta is physiologically adherent to the uterine wall, a gentle sweeping motion with an intrauterine hand usually can separate the placenta from the uterus in preparation for manual extraction. However, if a placenta accreta spectrum disorder is contributing to a retained placenta, it may be difficult to separate the densely adherent portion of the uterus from the uterine wall. In the presence of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, vigorous attempts to remove the placenta may precipitate massive bleeding. In some cases, the acchoucheur/midwife may recognize the presence of a focal accreta and cease attempts to remove the placenta in order to organize the personnel and equipment needed to effectively treat a potential case of placenta accreta. In one study, when a placenta accreta was recognized or suspected, immediately ceasing attempts at manually removing the placenta resulted in better case outcomes than continued attempts to remove the placenta.¹

Uterine inversion may occur during an attempt to manually remove the placenta. There is universal agreement that once a uterine inversion is recognized it is critically important to immediately restore normal uterine anatomy to avoid massive hemorrhage and maternal shock. The initial management of uterine inversion includes:

• stopping oxytocin infusion
• initiating high volume fluid resuscitation
• considering a dose of a uterine relaxant, such as nitroglycerin or terbutaline
• preparing for blood product replacement.

In my experience, when uterine inversion is immediately recognized and successfully treated, blood product replacement is not usually necessary. However, if uterine inversion has not been immediately recognized or treated, massive hemorrhage and shock may occur.

Two approaches to the vaginal restoration of uterine anatomy involve using the tips of the fingers and palm of the hand to guide the wall of the uterus back to its normal position (FIGURE 1) or to forcefully use a fist to force the uterine wall back to its normal position (FIGURE 2). If these maneuvers are unsuccessful, a laparotomy may be necessary.

At laparotomy, the Huntington or Haultain procedures may help restore normal uterine anatomy. The Huntington procedure involves using clamps to apply symmetrical tension to the left and right round ligaments and/or uterine serosa to sequentially tease the uterus back to normal anatomy.^2,3 The Haultain procedure involves a vertical incision on the posterior wall of the uterus to release the uterine constriction ring that is preventing the return of the uterine fundus to its normal position (FIGURE 3).^4,5

References

1. Kayem G, Anselem O, Schmitz T, et al. Conservative versus radical management in cases of placenta accreta: a historical study. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2007;36:680-687.
2. Huntington JL. Acute inversion of the uterus. Boston Med Surg J. 1921;184:376-378.
3. Huntington JL, Irving FC, Kellogg FS. Abdominal reposition in acute inversion of the puerperal uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1928;15:34-40.
4. Haultain FW. Abdominal hysterotomy for chronic uterine inversion: a record of 3 cases. Proc Roy Soc Med. 1908;1:528-535.
5. Easterday CL, Reid DE. Inversion of the puerperal uterus managed by the Haultain technique; A case report. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1959;78:1224-1226.

Manual extraction of the placenta

Prior to performing manual extraction of the placenta, a decision should be made regarding the approach to anesthesia and perioperative antibiotics. Manual extraction of the placenta is performed by placing one hand on the uterine fundus to stabilize the uterus and using the other hand to follow the umbilical cord into the uterine cavity. The intrauterine hand is used to separate the uterine-placental interface with a gentle sweeping motion. The placental mass is grasped and gently teased through the cervix and vagina. Inspection of the placenta to ensure complete removal is necessary.

An alternative to manual extraction of the placenta is the use of Bierer forceps and ultrasound guidance to tease the placenta through the cervical os. This technique involves the following steps¹⁵:

1. use ultrasound to locate the placenta

2. place a ring forceps on the anterior lip of the cervix

3. introduce the Bierer forcep into the uterus

4. use the forceps to grasp the placenta and pull it toward the vagina

5. stop frequently to re-grasp placental tissue that is deeper in the uterine cavity

6. once the placenta is extracted, examine the placenta to ensure complete removal.

Of note when manual extraction is used to deliver a retained placenta, randomized clinical trials report no benefit for the following interventions:

• perioperative antibiotics¹⁶
• nitroglycerin to relax the uterus¹⁷
• ultrasound to detect retained placental tissue.¹⁸

Best timing for manual extraction of the placenta

The timing for the diagnosis of retained placenta, and the risks and benefits of manual extraction would be best evaluated in a large, randomized clinical trial. However, based on observational studies, in a term pregnancy, the diagnosis of retained placenta is best made using a 20-minute interval. In women with effective neuraxial anesthesia, consideration should be given to manual removal of the placenta at that time.

You have just safely delivered the baby who is quietly resting on her mother’s chest. You begin active management of the third stage of labor, administering oxytocin, performing uterine massage and applying controlled tension on the umbilical cord. There is no evidence of excess postpartum bleeding.

How long will you wait to deliver the placenta?

Active management of the third stage of labor

Most authorities recommend active management of the third stage of labor because active management reduces the risk of maternal hemorrhage >1,000 mL (relative risk [RR], 0.34), postpartum hemoglobin levels < 9 g/dL (RR, 0.50), and maternal blood transfusion (RR, 0.35) compared with expectant management.¹

The most important component of active management of the third stage of labor is the administration of a uterotonic after delivery of the newborn. In the United States, oxytocin is the uterotonic most often utilized for the active management of the third stage of labor. Authors of a recent randomized clinical trial reported that intravenous oxytocin is superior to intramuscular oxytocin for reducing postpartum blood loss (385 vs 445 mL), the frequency of blood loss greater than 1,000 mL (4.6% vs 8.1%), and the rate of maternal blood transfusion (1.5% vs 4.4%).²

In addition to administering oxytocin, the active management of the third stage often involves maneuvers to accelerate placental delivery, including the Crede and Brandt-Andrews maneuvers and controlled tension on the umbilical cord. The Crede maneuver, described in 1853, involves placing a hand on the abdominal wall near the uterine fundus and squeezing the uterine fundus between the thumb and fingers.^3,4

The Brandt-Andrews maneuver, described in 1933, involves placing a clamp on the umbilical cord close to the vulva.⁵ The clamp is used to apply judicious tension on the cord with one hand, while the other hand is placed on the mother’s abdomen with the palm and fingers overlying the junction between the uterine corpus and the lower segment. With judicious tension on the cord, the abdominal hand pushes the uterus upward toward the umbilicus. Placental separation is indicated when lengthening of the umbilical cord occurs. The Brandt-Andrews maneuver may be associated with fewer cases of uterine inversion than the Crede maneuver.^5-7

Of note, umbilical cord traction has not been demonstrated to reduce the need for blood transfusion or the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) >1,000 mL, and it is commonly utilized by obstetricians and midwives.^8,9 Hence, in the third stage, the delivering clinician should routinely administer a uterotonic, but use of judicious tension on the cord can be deferred if the woman prefers a noninterventional approach to delivery.

Following a vaginal birth, when should the diagnosis of retained placenta be made?

The historic definition of retained placenta is nonexpulsion of the placenta 30 minutes after delivery of the newborn. However, many observational studies report that, when active management of the third stage is utilized, 90%, 95%, and 99% of placentas deliver by 9 minutes, 13 minutes, and 28 minutes, respectively.¹⁰ In addition, many observational studies report that the incidence of PPH increases significantly with longer intervals between birth of the newborn and delivery of the placenta. In one study the rate of blood loss >500 mL was 8.5% when the placenta delivered between 5 and 9 minutes and 35.1% when the placenta delivered ≥30 minutes following birth of the baby.¹⁰ In another observational study, compared with women delivering the placenta < 10 minutes after birth, women delivering the placenta ≥30 minutes after birth had a 3-fold increased risk of PPH.¹¹ Similar findings have been reported in other studies.^12-14

Continue to: Based on the association between a delay in delivery...

Based on the association between a delay in delivery of the placenta and an increased risk of PPH, some authorities recommend that, in term pregnancy, the diagnosis of retained placenta should be made at 20 minutes following birth and consideration should be given to removing the placenta at this time. For women with effective neuraxial anesthesia, manual removal of the placenta 20 minutes following birth may be the best decision for balancing the benefit of preventing PPH with the risk of unnecessary intervention. For women with no anesthesia, delaying manual removal of the placenta to 30 minutes or more following birth may permit more time for the placenta to deliver prior to performing an intervention that might cause pain, but the delay increases the risk of PPH.

Beware of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, and be ready to recognize and treat uterine inversion

---

The retained placenta may prevent the uterine muscle from effectively contracting around penetrating veins and arteries, thereby increasing the risk of postpartum hemorrhage. The placenta that has separated from the uterine wall but is trapped inside the uterine cavity can be removed easily with manual extraction. If the placenta is physiologically adherent to the uterine wall, a gentle sweeping motion with an intrauterine hand usually can separate the placenta from the uterus in preparation for manual extraction. However, if a placenta accreta spectrum disorder is contributing to a retained placenta, it may be difficult to separate the densely adherent portion of the uterus from the uterine wall. In the presence of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, vigorous attempts to remove the placenta may precipitate massive bleeding. In some cases, the acchoucheur/midwife may recognize the presence of a focal accreta and cease attempts to remove the placenta in order to organize the personnel and equipment needed to effectively treat a potential case of placenta accreta. In one study, when a placenta accreta was recognized or suspected, immediately ceasing attempts at manually removing the placenta resulted in better case outcomes than continued attempts to remove the placenta.¹

Uterine inversion may occur during an attempt to manually remove the placenta. There is universal agreement that once a uterine inversion is recognized it is critically important to immediately restore normal uterine anatomy to avoid massive hemorrhage and maternal shock. The initial management of uterine inversion includes:

• stopping oxytocin infusion
• initiating high volume fluid resuscitation
• considering a dose of a uterine relaxant, such as nitroglycerin or terbutaline
• preparing for blood product replacement.

In my experience, when uterine inversion is immediately recognized and successfully treated, blood product replacement is not usually necessary. However, if uterine inversion has not been immediately recognized or treated, massive hemorrhage and shock may occur.

Two approaches to the vaginal restoration of uterine anatomy involve using the tips of the fingers and palm of the hand to guide the wall of the uterus back to its normal position (FIGURE 1) or to forcefully use a fist to force the uterine wall back to its normal position (FIGURE 2). If these maneuvers are unsuccessful, a laparotomy may be necessary.

At laparotomy, the Huntington or Haultain procedures may help restore normal uterine anatomy. The Huntington procedure involves using clamps to apply symmetrical tension to the left and right round ligaments and/or uterine serosa to sequentially tease the uterus back to normal anatomy.^2,3 The Haultain procedure involves a vertical incision on the posterior wall of the uterus to release the uterine constriction ring that is preventing the return of the uterine fundus to its normal position (FIGURE 3).^4,5

References

1. Kayem G, Anselem O, Schmitz T, et al. Conservative versus radical management in cases of placenta accreta: a historical study. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2007;36:680-687.
2. Huntington JL. Acute inversion of the uterus. Boston Med Surg J. 1921;184:376-378.
3. Huntington JL, Irving FC, Kellogg FS. Abdominal reposition in acute inversion of the puerperal uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1928;15:34-40.
4. Haultain FW. Abdominal hysterotomy for chronic uterine inversion: a record of 3 cases. Proc Roy Soc Med. 1908;1:528-535.
5. Easterday CL, Reid DE. Inversion of the puerperal uterus managed by the Haultain technique; A case report. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1959;78:1224-1226.

Manual extraction of the placenta

Prior to performing manual extraction of the placenta, a decision should be made regarding the approach to anesthesia and perioperative antibiotics. Manual extraction of the placenta is performed by placing one hand on the uterine fundus to stabilize the uterus and using the other hand to follow the umbilical cord into the uterine cavity. The intrauterine hand is used to separate the uterine-placental interface with a gentle sweeping motion. The placental mass is grasped and gently teased through the cervix and vagina. Inspection of the placenta to ensure complete removal is necessary.

An alternative to manual extraction of the placenta is the use of Bierer forceps and ultrasound guidance to tease the placenta through the cervical os. This technique involves the following steps¹⁵:

1. use ultrasound to locate the placenta

2. place a ring forceps on the anterior lip of the cervix

3. introduce the Bierer forcep into the uterus

4. use the forceps to grasp the placenta and pull it toward the vagina

5. stop frequently to re-grasp placental tissue that is deeper in the uterine cavity

6. once the placenta is extracted, examine the placenta to ensure complete removal.

Of note when manual extraction is used to deliver a retained placenta, randomized clinical trials report no benefit for the following interventions:

• perioperative antibiotics¹⁶
• nitroglycerin to relax the uterus¹⁷
• ultrasound to detect retained placental tissue.¹⁸

Best timing for manual extraction of the placenta

The timing for the diagnosis of retained placenta, and the risks and benefits of manual extraction would be best evaluated in a large, randomized clinical trial. However, based on observational studies, in a term pregnancy, the diagnosis of retained placenta is best made using a 20-minute interval. In women with effective neuraxial anesthesia, consideration should be given to manual removal of the placenta at that time.

You have just safely delivered the baby who is quietly resting on her mother’s chest. You begin active management of the third stage of labor, administering oxytocin, performing uterine massage and applying controlled tension on the umbilical cord. There is no evidence of excess postpartum bleeding.

How long will you wait to deliver the placenta?

Active management of the third stage of labor

Most authorities recommend active management of the third stage of labor because active management reduces the risk of maternal hemorrhage >1,000 mL (relative risk [RR], 0.34), postpartum hemoglobin levels < 9 g/dL (RR, 0.50), and maternal blood transfusion (RR, 0.35) compared with expectant management.¹

The most important component of active management of the third stage of labor is the administration of a uterotonic after delivery of the newborn. In the United States, oxytocin is the uterotonic most often utilized for the active management of the third stage of labor. Authors of a recent randomized clinical trial reported that intravenous oxytocin is superior to intramuscular oxytocin for reducing postpartum blood loss (385 vs 445 mL), the frequency of blood loss greater than 1,000 mL (4.6% vs 8.1%), and the rate of maternal blood transfusion (1.5% vs 4.4%).²

In addition to administering oxytocin, the active management of the third stage often involves maneuvers to accelerate placental delivery, including the Crede and Brandt-Andrews maneuvers and controlled tension on the umbilical cord. The Crede maneuver, described in 1853, involves placing a hand on the abdominal wall near the uterine fundus and squeezing the uterine fundus between the thumb and fingers.^3,4

The Brandt-Andrews maneuver, described in 1933, involves placing a clamp on the umbilical cord close to the vulva.⁵ The clamp is used to apply judicious tension on the cord with one hand, while the other hand is placed on the mother’s abdomen with the palm and fingers overlying the junction between the uterine corpus and the lower segment. With judicious tension on the cord, the abdominal hand pushes the uterus upward toward the umbilicus. Placental separation is indicated when lengthening of the umbilical cord occurs. The Brandt-Andrews maneuver may be associated with fewer cases of uterine inversion than the Crede maneuver.^5-7

Of note, umbilical cord traction has not been demonstrated to reduce the need for blood transfusion or the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) >1,000 mL, and it is commonly utilized by obstetricians and midwives.^8,9 Hence, in the third stage, the delivering clinician should routinely administer a uterotonic, but use of judicious tension on the cord can be deferred if the woman prefers a noninterventional approach to delivery.

Following a vaginal birth, when should the diagnosis of retained placenta be made?

The historic definition of retained placenta is nonexpulsion of the placenta 30 minutes after delivery of the newborn. However, many observational studies report that, when active management of the third stage is utilized, 90%, 95%, and 99% of placentas deliver by 9 minutes, 13 minutes, and 28 minutes, respectively.¹⁰ In addition, many observational studies report that the incidence of PPH increases significantly with longer intervals between birth of the newborn and delivery of the placenta. In one study the rate of blood loss >500 mL was 8.5% when the placenta delivered between 5 and 9 minutes and 35.1% when the placenta delivered ≥30 minutes following birth of the baby.¹⁰ In another observational study, compared with women delivering the placenta < 10 minutes after birth, women delivering the placenta ≥30 minutes after birth had a 3-fold increased risk of PPH.¹¹ Similar findings have been reported in other studies.^12-14

Continue to: Based on the association between a delay in delivery...

Based on the association between a delay in delivery of the placenta and an increased risk of PPH, some authorities recommend that, in term pregnancy, the diagnosis of retained placenta should be made at 20 minutes following birth and consideration should be given to removing the placenta at this time. For women with effective neuraxial anesthesia, manual removal of the placenta 20 minutes following birth may be the best decision for balancing the benefit of preventing PPH with the risk of unnecessary intervention. For women with no anesthesia, delaying manual removal of the placenta to 30 minutes or more following birth may permit more time for the placenta to deliver prior to performing an intervention that might cause pain, but the delay increases the risk of PPH.

Beware of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, and be ready to recognize and treat uterine inversion

---

The retained placenta may prevent the uterine muscle from effectively contracting around penetrating veins and arteries, thereby increasing the risk of postpartum hemorrhage. The placenta that has separated from the uterine wall but is trapped inside the uterine cavity can be removed easily with manual extraction. If the placenta is physiologically adherent to the uterine wall, a gentle sweeping motion with an intrauterine hand usually can separate the placenta from the uterus in preparation for manual extraction. However, if a placenta accreta spectrum disorder is contributing to a retained placenta, it may be difficult to separate the densely adherent portion of the uterus from the uterine wall. In the presence of placenta accreta spectrum disorder, vigorous attempts to remove the placenta may precipitate massive bleeding. In some cases, the acchoucheur/midwife may recognize the presence of a focal accreta and cease attempts to remove the placenta in order to organize the personnel and equipment needed to effectively treat a potential case of placenta accreta. In one study, when a placenta accreta was recognized or suspected, immediately ceasing attempts at manually removing the placenta resulted in better case outcomes than continued attempts to remove the placenta.¹

Uterine inversion may occur during an attempt to manually remove the placenta. There is universal agreement that once a uterine inversion is recognized it is critically important to immediately restore normal uterine anatomy to avoid massive hemorrhage and maternal shock. The initial management of uterine inversion includes:

• stopping oxytocin infusion
• initiating high volume fluid resuscitation
• considering a dose of a uterine relaxant, such as nitroglycerin or terbutaline
• preparing for blood product replacement.

In my experience, when uterine inversion is immediately recognized and successfully treated, blood product replacement is not usually necessary. However, if uterine inversion has not been immediately recognized or treated, massive hemorrhage and shock may occur.

Two approaches to the vaginal restoration of uterine anatomy involve using the tips of the fingers and palm of the hand to guide the wall of the uterus back to its normal position (FIGURE 1) or to forcefully use a fist to force the uterine wall back to its normal position (FIGURE 2). If these maneuvers are unsuccessful, a laparotomy may be necessary.

At laparotomy, the Huntington or Haultain procedures may help restore normal uterine anatomy. The Huntington procedure involves using clamps to apply symmetrical tension to the left and right round ligaments and/or uterine serosa to sequentially tease the uterus back to normal anatomy.^2,3 The Haultain procedure involves a vertical incision on the posterior wall of the uterus to release the uterine constriction ring that is preventing the return of the uterine fundus to its normal position (FIGURE 3).^4,5

References

1. Kayem G, Anselem O, Schmitz T, et al. Conservative versus radical management in cases of placenta accreta: a historical study. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2007;36:680-687.
2. Huntington JL. Acute inversion of the uterus. Boston Med Surg J. 1921;184:376-378.
3. Huntington JL, Irving FC, Kellogg FS. Abdominal reposition in acute inversion of the puerperal uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1928;15:34-40.
4. Haultain FW. Abdominal hysterotomy for chronic uterine inversion: a record of 3 cases. Proc Roy Soc Med. 1908;1:528-535.
5. Easterday CL, Reid DE. Inversion of the puerperal uterus managed by the Haultain technique; A case report. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1959;78:1224-1226.

Manual extraction of the placenta

Prior to performing manual extraction of the placenta, a decision should be made regarding the approach to anesthesia and perioperative antibiotics. Manual extraction of the placenta is performed by placing one hand on the uterine fundus to stabilize the uterus and using the other hand to follow the umbilical cord into the uterine cavity. The intrauterine hand is used to separate the uterine-placental interface with a gentle sweeping motion. The placental mass is grasped and gently teased through the cervix and vagina. Inspection of the placenta to ensure complete removal is necessary.

An alternative to manual extraction of the placenta is the use of Bierer forceps and ultrasound guidance to tease the placenta through the cervical os. This technique involves the following steps¹⁵:

1. use ultrasound to locate the placenta

2. place a ring forceps on the anterior lip of the cervix

3. introduce the Bierer forcep into the uterus

4. use the forceps to grasp the placenta and pull it toward the vagina

5. stop frequently to re-grasp placental tissue that is deeper in the uterine cavity

6. once the placenta is extracted, examine the placenta to ensure complete removal.

Of note when manual extraction is used to deliver a retained placenta, randomized clinical trials report no benefit for the following interventions:

• perioperative antibiotics¹⁶
• nitroglycerin to relax the uterus¹⁷
• ultrasound to detect retained placental tissue.¹⁸

Best timing for manual extraction of the placenta

The timing for the diagnosis of retained placenta, and the risks and benefits of manual extraction would be best evaluated in a large, randomized clinical trial. However, based on observational studies, in a term pregnancy, the diagnosis of retained placenta is best made using a 20-minute interval. In women with effective neuraxial anesthesia, consideration should be given to manual removal of the placenta at that time.

In 1992, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published their first joint guidelines on the prevention of early-onset neonatal group B streptococcal (GBS) infection.¹ In this initial statement, the organizations recommended universal culturing of obstetric patients at 28 weeks’ gestation and treatment of colonized women during labor if they had a recognized risk factor for neonatal GBS infection.

In 1996, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published its first set of official guidelines on the topic and suggested that both universal screening and a risk-factor–based approach were reasonable options.² The 2002 update of the CDC guidelines strongly recommended universal screening of all pregnant women at 35 to 37 weeks’ gestation and intrapartum prophylaxis for all colonized women regardless of risk factors.³

The third set of CDC guidelines was published in 2010.⁴ The key features of this version were the elimination of erythromycin as an alternative to penicillin in patients who are allergic to beta-lactam antibiotics and the establishment of 4 hours as the critical interval for administration of prophylaxis prior to delivery. The 2010 publication was the last such report from the CDC. Since then ACOG and AAP have been tasked with providing updated practice guidelines. To that end, ACOG recently issued a new Committee Opinion on “Prevention of Group B Streptococcal Early-Onset Disease in Newborns.”⁵ Here we will highlight the key features of our current strategy for preventing neonatal GBS infection.

CASE Pregnant patient presents with many questions about GBS

A 26-year-old primigravid woman presents for her first prenatal appointment at 9 weeks’ gestation. Her older sister recently delivered a term infant that died in the first week of life from GBS sepsis. Understandably, she has many questions.

1. Your patient first wants to know, “What is this streptococcal organism and how likely am I to have this infection?”

Streptococcus agalactiae, also known as GBS, is a gram-positive encapsulated bacterium that produces beta hemolysis when grown on blood agar. Approximately 25% of pregnant women harbor this organism in the lower genital tract and/or rectum.⁶

GBS is one of the most important causes of neonatal infection, particularly in preterm infants. The frequency of infection is now 0.23 per 1,000 live births in the US.⁵

Neonatal infection can be divided into early-onset infection (occurring within the first 7 days of life) and late-onset infection (occurring from after the first week until the third month of life). Approximately 80% to 85% of cases of neonatal GBS infections are early in onset. Virtually all of the early-onset infections result from vertical transmission during delivery from a colonized mother to her infant.^5-7

2. “How dangerous is this infection to my baby and me? Are there certain factors that increase the risk of my baby becoming infected?”

GBS is responsible for approximately 2% to 3% of cases of either asymptomatic bacteriuria or acute cystitis. Women with urinary tract infections caused by GBS are at increased risk for preterm premature rupture of membranes and preterm delivery. Genital tract colonization also increases a woman’s risk for chorioamnionitis and endometritis, particularly after cesarean delivery (CD). In addition, GBS can be part of the polymicrobial flora in women who have a wound (incisional site) infection following CD.^6,7

Continue to: In colonized women, several risk factors...

In colonized women, several risk factors have been identified that increase the probability of early-onset neonatal GBS infection. These factors include: preterm labor, especially when complicated by premature rupture of membranes; intrapartum maternal fever (usually due to chorioamnionitis); rupture of membranes greater than 18 hours before delivery; previous delivery of an infected infant; young age; and black or Hispanic ethnicity. Approximately 25% of colonized women will have one of these risk factors.^5-7

These risk factors have a profound impact on neonatal attack rates and mortality. Without the interventions outlined below, the neonatal infection rate is 40% to 50% in the presence of a risk factor and less than 5% in the absence of a risk factor. In infected infants, neonatal mortality approaches 30% to 35% when a maternal risk factor is present, but is less than 5% when risk factors are absent.^5-7

3. “What will you do to determine if I am colonized with this organism?”

The current guidelines set forth in the ACOG Committee Opinion recommend that selected high-risk patients (patients with preterm labor or preterm premature rupture of membranes) be tested for GBS at the time of initial presentation. All other women should be tested for GBS during the interval 36 0/7 to 37 6/7 weeks’ gestation.⁵ Testing at this point in pregnancy is almost 90% sensitive for identifying patients who will be colonized at the time of admission for labor if no more than 5 weeks elapse between the time the culture is obtained and labor begins. The positive predictive value of this test is 87%, and the negative predictive value is 96%.⁸

ACOG’s previous guidelines provided for testing at 35 rather than 36 weeks. The change in the recommendations was based on 2 factors. First, all women with unknown GBS status who may deliver before 37 weeks already should be targeted for prophylaxis. Second, the new 5-week window now will include women who deliver up to 41 weeks’ gestation. Given current obstetric practice in the US, delivery beyond 41 weeks is unlikely.⁵

At the present time, the best test for identification of GBS colonization is bacteriologic culture. A cotton swab is placed into the lower third of the vagina, streaked along the perineum, and then placed into the rectum. The swab is withdrawn, placed in a culturette tube, and transported to the laboratory. In the laboratory, the swab is cultured for approximately 24 hours in a nutrient broth and then subcultured on a selective blood agar plate. Failure to sample both the vagina and rectum or failure to use selective broth and selective blood agar will reduce the yield of positive cultures by approximately 50%.^5-7

In recent years, researchers have become interested in the use of rapid nucleic acid amplification tests for the identification of GBS. These tests perform well if the test protocol provides for an 18- to 24-hour incubation in nutrient broth prior to application of the nucleic acid probe. When the tests are performed without this enrichment phase, sensitivities are inferior to those associated with bacteriologic culture. In addition, because the rapid tests do not isolate the organisms, they do not allow for antibiotic sensitivity testing.^5-7

Continue to: “If I test positive for GBS, how and when will you treat me?”...

4. “If I test positive for GBS, how and when will you treat me?”

The current ACOG guidelines recommend that all colonized women be treated intrapartum with prophylactic antibiotics regardless of whether risk factors are present. Treatment should be started at the time of admission and continued until the infant is delivered.⁵

The drugs of choice for intrapartum prophylaxis are intravenous penicillin or ampicillin. If the patient has a mild allergy to penicillin, cefazolin is the appropriate alternative. If the patient has a severe allergy to penicillin, the 2 options are vancomycin or clindamycin. If the latter drug is used, the laboratory must perform sensitivity testing because 13% to 20% of strains of GBS may be resistant to clindamycin. The frequency of resistance to erythromycin now ranges from 25% to 32%. Thus, erythromycin is no longer used for intrapartum prophylaxis.^5-7,9

The appropriate intravenous dosages of these antibiotics are listed in the TABLE.⁵ The new ACOG guidelines have revised the previous recommendations for dosing of penicillin, eliminating the 2.5 million-unit dose. They also have revised the dosing recommendations for vancomyin, eliminating the previous recommendation of 1 g every 12 hours.⁵ The new recommendations regarding vancomycin are particularly important and are based, at least in part, on an interesting report from Onwuchuruba and colleagues.¹⁰ These authors studied maternal and cord blood concentrations of vancomycin in mother-infant dyads receiving either the original recommended dosage of vancomycin (1 g every 12 hours) or a dosage of 15 to 20 mg/kg every 8 hours. With standard dosing, only 9% of neonates had therapeutic vancomycin serum concentrations at delivery. With the 20 mg/kg dose of vancomycin, the percent of neonates with therapeutic serum concentrations of vancomycin increased to 80%.

5. “For how long must I be treated in labor before my baby will be protected by the antibiotics?”

The current ACOG Committee Opinion stresses the importance of treating the colonized mother for at least 4 hours prior to delivery.⁵ This recommendation is based primarily on the landmark report by De Cueto and colleagues.¹¹ These authors evaluated colonized women who received intrapartum prophylaxis at varying times prior to delivery. Their primary endpoint was the percentage of newborns who were colonized with GBS. If the mothers had received antibiotics for less than 1 hour prior to delivery, 46% of neonates were colonized. This figure was equal to the rate of colonization in neonates whose mothers received no antibiotics. When the interval was 1 to 2 hours, the percentage was 29%. When mothers had received antibiotics for 2 to 4 hours, the neonatal colonization rate fell to 2.9%. When antibiotics had been administered for greater than 4 hours, the rate of neonatal colonization was only 1.2%.

Fairlie and colleagues recently reported the results of another interesting investigation comparing the effectiveness of prophylaxis based on duration of treatment and choice of individual antibiotics.¹² Prophylaxis with penicillin or ampicillin for 4 hours or more was 91% effective in preventing early-onset neonatal infection in term infants and 86% effective in preventing infection in preterm infants. These outcomes were superior to the outcomes in both term and preterm infants who received penicillin or ampicillin for less than 4 hours.

Continue to: “If I were to have a scheduled CD before the onset of labor and/or ruptured membranes, would I still need to receive antibiotics?”...

6. “If I were to have a scheduled CD before the onset of labor and/or ruptured membranes, would I still need to receive antibiotics?”

If a mother is scheduled to have a CD, for example because of a prior cesarean or because of a persistent fetal malpresentation, she should still have a GBS culture at 36 0/7 to 37 6/7 weeks’ gestation. The information obtained from this culture may be of value to both the obstetrician and pediatrician if the patient experiences labor or rupture of membranes prior to her scheduled surgery. If she does not experience spontaneous labor prior to her scheduled date of surgery, she does not require specific GBS prophylaxis at the time of her operation.⁵ Rather, she should receive prophylactic antibiotics to prevent post–cesarean infection, ideally, the combination of cefazolin (2 g IV) plus azithromycin (500 mg IV).¹⁴ Cefazolin, of course, provides excellent coverage of GBS.

7. “If I am colonized with GBS and I receive treatment during labor, will my baby be safe after delivery?”

The interventions outlined above will prevent almost 90% of early-onset GBS infections, but they are not foolproof.^5-7,15,16 Successful management of the neonate is dependent upon several factors, including:^5-7

• gestational age
• presence of maternal chorioamnionitis
• presence or absence of risk factors for early-onset infection
• duration (adequacy) of maternal treatment during labor
• presence of immediate clinical signs of infection in the neonate (such as fever, lethargy, hemodynamic instability, respiratory distress, or elevated or decreased white blood cell count).

If the mother is at term and receives intrapartum prophylaxis for at least 4 hours prior to delivery, the neonate usually will not require any special tests and simply will be observed for 24 to 48 hours for signs of infection.

If the mother delivers preterm and receives appropriate intrapartum prophylaxis, the pediatricians typically will obtain a complete blood count (CBC) and treat with prophylactic antibiotics (ampicillin plus gentamicin) for 48 hours if abnormalities are noted on the CBC or the baby exhibits signs of infection. If the CBC is normal and the baby shows no signs of infection, no treatment is indicated.

Regardless of gestational age, if the mother does not receive prophylaxis for at least 4 hours before delivery, the pediatricians usually will obtain a CBC and closely observe the baby in the hospital for signs of infection. If such signs develop or the CBC is abnormal, blood and cerebrospinal fluid cultures will be obtained. Antibiotic therapy (usually ampicillin plus gentamicin) is then initiated, and the drugs are continued until cultures return with no growth. If either culture is positive, antibiotics will then be continued for 7 to 10 days.

If the mother has documented chorioamnionitis and receives treatment intrapartum with appropriate antibiotics (usually ampicillin plus gentamicin), the pediatricians usually will obtain a CBC, C-reactive protein (CRP) level, and blood cultures and then start the infant on antibiotics, pending the result of the laboratory tests. If the CBC and CRP are reassuring, the cultures are negative after 48 hours, and the infant demonstrates no signs of clinical infection, many pediatricians will then discontinue antibiotics. Others may still continue the antibiotics for 7 to 10 days.

In 1992, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published their first joint guidelines on the prevention of early-onset neonatal group B streptococcal (GBS) infection.¹ In this initial statement, the organizations recommended universal culturing of obstetric patients at 28 weeks’ gestation and treatment of colonized women during labor if they had a recognized risk factor for neonatal GBS infection.

In 1996, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published its first set of official guidelines on the topic and suggested that both universal screening and a risk-factor–based approach were reasonable options.² The 2002 update of the CDC guidelines strongly recommended universal screening of all pregnant women at 35 to 37 weeks’ gestation and intrapartum prophylaxis for all colonized women regardless of risk factors.³

The third set of CDC guidelines was published in 2010.⁴ The key features of this version were the elimination of erythromycin as an alternative to penicillin in patients who are allergic to beta-lactam antibiotics and the establishment of 4 hours as the critical interval for administration of prophylaxis prior to delivery. The 2010 publication was the last such report from the CDC. Since then ACOG and AAP have been tasked with providing updated practice guidelines. To that end, ACOG recently issued a new Committee Opinion on “Prevention of Group B Streptococcal Early-Onset Disease in Newborns.”⁵ Here we will highlight the key features of our current strategy for preventing neonatal GBS infection.

CASE Pregnant patient presents with many questions about GBS

A 26-year-old primigravid woman presents for her first prenatal appointment at 9 weeks’ gestation. Her older sister recently delivered a term infant that died in the first week of life from GBS sepsis. Understandably, she has many questions.

1. Your patient first wants to know, “What is this streptococcal organism and how likely am I to have this infection?”

Streptococcus agalactiae, also known as GBS, is a gram-positive encapsulated bacterium that produces beta hemolysis when grown on blood agar. Approximately 25% of pregnant women harbor this organism in the lower genital tract and/or rectum.⁶

GBS is one of the most important causes of neonatal infection, particularly in preterm infants. The frequency of infection is now 0.23 per 1,000 live births in the US.⁵

Neonatal infection can be divided into early-onset infection (occurring within the first 7 days of life) and late-onset infection (occurring from after the first week until the third month of life). Approximately 80% to 85% of cases of neonatal GBS infections are early in onset. Virtually all of the early-onset infections result from vertical transmission during delivery from a colonized mother to her infant.^5-7

2. “How dangerous is this infection to my baby and me? Are there certain factors that increase the risk of my baby becoming infected?”

GBS is responsible for approximately 2% to 3% of cases of either asymptomatic bacteriuria or acute cystitis. Women with urinary tract infections caused by GBS are at increased risk for preterm premature rupture of membranes and preterm delivery. Genital tract colonization also increases a woman’s risk for chorioamnionitis and endometritis, particularly after cesarean delivery (CD). In addition, GBS can be part of the polymicrobial flora in women who have a wound (incisional site) infection following CD.^6,7

Continue to: In colonized women, several risk factors...

In colonized women, several risk factors have been identified that increase the probability of early-onset neonatal GBS infection. These factors include: preterm labor, especially when complicated by premature rupture of membranes; intrapartum maternal fever (usually due to chorioamnionitis); rupture of membranes greater than 18 hours before delivery; previous delivery of an infected infant; young age; and black or Hispanic ethnicity. Approximately 25% of colonized women will have one of these risk factors.^5-7

These risk factors have a profound impact on neonatal attack rates and mortality. Without the interventions outlined below, the neonatal infection rate is 40% to 50% in the presence of a risk factor and less than 5% in the absence of a risk factor. In infected infants, neonatal mortality approaches 30% to 35% when a maternal risk factor is present, but is less than 5% when risk factors are absent.^5-7

3. “What will you do to determine if I am colonized with this organism?”

The current guidelines set forth in the ACOG Committee Opinion recommend that selected high-risk patients (patients with preterm labor or preterm premature rupture of membranes) be tested for GBS at the time of initial presentation. All other women should be tested for GBS during the interval 36 0/7 to 37 6/7 weeks’ gestation.⁵ Testing at this point in pregnancy is almost 90% sensitive for identifying patients who will be colonized at the time of admission for labor if no more than 5 weeks elapse between the time the culture is obtained and labor begins. The positive predictive value of this test is 87%, and the negative predictive value is 96%.⁸

ACOG’s previous guidelines provided for testing at 35 rather than 36 weeks. The change in the recommendations was based on 2 factors. First, all women with unknown GBS status who may deliver before 37 weeks already should be targeted for prophylaxis. Second, the new 5-week window now will include women who deliver up to 41 weeks’ gestation. Given current obstetric practice in the US, delivery beyond 41 weeks is unlikely.⁵

At the present time, the best test for identification of GBS colonization is bacteriologic culture. A cotton swab is placed into the lower third of the vagina, streaked along the perineum, and then placed into the rectum. The swab is withdrawn, placed in a culturette tube, and transported to the laboratory. In the laboratory, the swab is cultured for approximately 24 hours in a nutrient broth and then subcultured on a selective blood agar plate. Failure to sample both the vagina and rectum or failure to use selective broth and selective blood agar will reduce the yield of positive cultures by approximately 50%.^5-7

In recent years, researchers have become interested in the use of rapid nucleic acid amplification tests for the identification of GBS. These tests perform well if the test protocol provides for an 18- to 24-hour incubation in nutrient broth prior to application of the nucleic acid probe. When the tests are performed without this enrichment phase, sensitivities are inferior to those associated with bacteriologic culture. In addition, because the rapid tests do not isolate the organisms, they do not allow for antibiotic sensitivity testing.^5-7

Continue to: “If I test positive for GBS, how and when will you treat me?”...

4. “If I test positive for GBS, how and when will you treat me?”

The current ACOG guidelines recommend that all colonized women be treated intrapartum with prophylactic antibiotics regardless of whether risk factors are present. Treatment should be started at the time of admission and continued until the infant is delivered.⁵

The drugs of choice for intrapartum prophylaxis are intravenous penicillin or ampicillin. If the patient has a mild allergy to penicillin, cefazolin is the appropriate alternative. If the patient has a severe allergy to penicillin, the 2 options are vancomycin or clindamycin. If the latter drug is used, the laboratory must perform sensitivity testing because 13% to 20% of strains of GBS may be resistant to clindamycin. The frequency of resistance to erythromycin now ranges from 25% to 32%. Thus, erythromycin is no longer used for intrapartum prophylaxis.^5-7,9

The appropriate intravenous dosages of these antibiotics are listed in the TABLE.⁵ The new ACOG guidelines have revised the previous recommendations for dosing of penicillin, eliminating the 2.5 million-unit dose. They also have revised the dosing recommendations for vancomyin, eliminating the previous recommendation of 1 g every 12 hours.⁵ The new recommendations regarding vancomycin are particularly important and are based, at least in part, on an interesting report from Onwuchuruba and colleagues.¹⁰ These authors studied maternal and cord blood concentrations of vancomycin in mother-infant dyads receiving either the original recommended dosage of vancomycin (1 g every 12 hours) or a dosage of 15 to 20 mg/kg every 8 hours. With standard dosing, only 9% of neonates had therapeutic vancomycin serum concentrations at delivery. With the 20 mg/kg dose of vancomycin, the percent of neonates with therapeutic serum concentrations of vancomycin increased to 80%.

5. “For how long must I be treated in labor before my baby will be protected by the antibiotics?”

The current ACOG Committee Opinion stresses the importance of treating the colonized mother for at least 4 hours prior to delivery.⁵ This recommendation is based primarily on the landmark report by De Cueto and colleagues.¹¹ These authors evaluated colonized women who received intrapartum prophylaxis at varying times prior to delivery. Their primary endpoint was the percentage of newborns who were colonized with GBS. If the mothers had received antibiotics for less than 1 hour prior to delivery, 46% of neonates were colonized. This figure was equal to the rate of colonization in neonates whose mothers received no antibiotics. When the interval was 1 to 2 hours, the percentage was 29%. When mothers had received antibiotics for 2 to 4 hours, the neonatal colonization rate fell to 2.9%. When antibiotics had been administered for greater than 4 hours, the rate of neonatal colonization was only 1.2%.

Fairlie and colleagues recently reported the results of another interesting investigation comparing the effectiveness of prophylaxis based on duration of treatment and choice of individual antibiotics.¹² Prophylaxis with penicillin or ampicillin for 4 hours or more was 91% effective in preventing early-onset neonatal infection in term infants and 86% effective in preventing infection in preterm infants. These outcomes were superior to the outcomes in both term and preterm infants who received penicillin or ampicillin for less than 4 hours.

Continue to: “If I were to have a scheduled CD before the onset of labor and/or ruptured membranes, would I still need to receive antibiotics?”...

6. “If I were to have a scheduled CD before the onset of labor and/or ruptured membranes, would I still need to receive antibiotics?”

If a mother is scheduled to have a CD, for example because of a prior cesarean or because of a persistent fetal malpresentation, she should still have a GBS culture at 36 0/7 to 37 6/7 weeks’ gestation. The information obtained from this culture may be of value to both the obstetrician and pediatrician if the patient experiences labor or rupture of membranes prior to her scheduled surgery. If she does not experience spontaneous labor prior to her scheduled date of surgery, she does not require specific GBS prophylaxis at the time of her operation.⁵ Rather, she should receive prophylactic antibiotics to prevent post–cesarean infection, ideally, the combination of cefazolin (2 g IV) plus azithromycin (500 mg IV).¹⁴ Cefazolin, of course, provides excellent coverage of GBS.

7. “If I am colonized with GBS and I receive treatment during labor, will my baby be safe after delivery?”

The interventions outlined above will prevent almost 90% of early-onset GBS infections, but they are not foolproof.^5-7,15,16 Successful management of the neonate is dependent upon several factors, including:^5-7

• gestational age
• presence of maternal chorioamnionitis
• presence or absence of risk factors for early-onset infection
• duration (adequacy) of maternal treatment during labor
• presence of immediate clinical signs of infection in the neonate (such as fever, lethargy, hemodynamic instability, respiratory distress, or elevated or decreased white blood cell count).

If the mother is at term and receives intrapartum prophylaxis for at least 4 hours prior to delivery, the neonate usually will not require any special tests and simply will be observed for 24 to 48 hours for signs of infection.

If the mother delivers preterm and receives appropriate intrapartum prophylaxis, the pediatricians typically will obtain a complete blood count (CBC) and treat with prophylactic antibiotics (ampicillin plus gentamicin) for 48 hours if abnormalities are noted on the CBC or the baby exhibits signs of infection. If the CBC is normal and the baby shows no signs of infection, no treatment is indicated.

Regardless of gestational age, if the mother does not receive prophylaxis for at least 4 hours before delivery, the pediatricians usually will obtain a CBC and closely observe the baby in the hospital for signs of infection. If such signs develop or the CBC is abnormal, blood and cerebrospinal fluid cultures will be obtained. Antibiotic therapy (usually ampicillin plus gentamicin) is then initiated, and the drugs are continued until cultures return with no growth. If either culture is positive, antibiotics will then be continued for 7 to 10 days.

If the mother has documented chorioamnionitis and receives treatment intrapartum with appropriate antibiotics (usually ampicillin plus gentamicin), the pediatricians usually will obtain a CBC, C-reactive protein (CRP) level, and blood cultures and then start the infant on antibiotics, pending the result of the laboratory tests. If the CBC and CRP are reassuring, the cultures are negative after 48 hours, and the infant demonstrates no signs of clinical infection, many pediatricians will then discontinue antibiotics. Others may still continue the antibiotics for 7 to 10 days.

In 1992, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published their first joint guidelines on the prevention of early-onset neonatal group B streptococcal (GBS) infection.¹ In this initial statement, the organizations recommended universal culturing of obstetric patients at 28 weeks’ gestation and treatment of colonized women during labor if they had a recognized risk factor for neonatal GBS infection.

In 1996, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published its first set of official guidelines on the topic and suggested that both universal screening and a risk-factor–based approach were reasonable options.² The 2002 update of the CDC guidelines strongly recommended universal screening of all pregnant women at 35 to 37 weeks’ gestation and intrapartum prophylaxis for all colonized women regardless of risk factors.³

The third set of CDC guidelines was published in 2010.⁴ The key features of this version were the elimination of erythromycin as an alternative to penicillin in patients who are allergic to beta-lactam antibiotics and the establishment of 4 hours as the critical interval for administration of prophylaxis prior to delivery. The 2010 publication was the last such report from the CDC. Since then ACOG and AAP have been tasked with providing updated practice guidelines. To that end, ACOG recently issued a new Committee Opinion on “Prevention of Group B Streptococcal Early-Onset Disease in Newborns.”⁵ Here we will highlight the key features of our current strategy for preventing neonatal GBS infection.

CASE Pregnant patient presents with many questions about GBS

A 26-year-old primigravid woman presents for her first prenatal appointment at 9 weeks’ gestation. Her older sister recently delivered a term infant that died in the first week of life from GBS sepsis. Understandably, she has many questions.

1. Your patient first wants to know, “What is this streptococcal organism and how likely am I to have this infection?”

Streptococcus agalactiae, also known as GBS, is a gram-positive encapsulated bacterium that produces beta hemolysis when grown on blood agar. Approximately 25% of pregnant women harbor this organism in the lower genital tract and/or rectum.⁶

GBS is one of the most important causes of neonatal infection, particularly in preterm infants. The frequency of infection is now 0.23 per 1,000 live births in the US.⁵

Neonatal infection can be divided into early-onset infection (occurring within the first 7 days of life) and late-onset infection (occurring from after the first week until the third month of life). Approximately 80% to 85% of cases of neonatal GBS infections are early in onset. Virtually all of the early-onset infections result from vertical transmission during delivery from a colonized mother to her infant.^5-7

2. “How dangerous is this infection to my baby and me? Are there certain factors that increase the risk of my baby becoming infected?”

GBS is responsible for approximately 2% to 3% of cases of either asymptomatic bacteriuria or acute cystitis. Women with urinary tract infections caused by GBS are at increased risk for preterm premature rupture of membranes and preterm delivery. Genital tract colonization also increases a woman’s risk for chorioamnionitis and endometritis, particularly after cesarean delivery (CD). In addition, GBS can be part of the polymicrobial flora in women who have a wound (incisional site) infection following CD.^6,7

Continue to: In colonized women, several risk factors...

In colonized women, several risk factors have been identified that increase the probability of early-onset neonatal GBS infection. These factors include: preterm labor, especially when complicated by premature rupture of membranes; intrapartum maternal fever (usually due to chorioamnionitis); rupture of membranes greater than 18 hours before delivery; previous delivery of an infected infant; young age; and black or Hispanic ethnicity. Approximately 25% of colonized women will have one of these risk factors.^5-7

These risk factors have a profound impact on neonatal attack rates and mortality. Without the interventions outlined below, the neonatal infection rate is 40% to 50% in the presence of a risk factor and less than 5% in the absence of a risk factor. In infected infants, neonatal mortality approaches 30% to 35% when a maternal risk factor is present, but is less than 5% when risk factors are absent.^5-7

3. “What will you do to determine if I am colonized with this organism?”

The current guidelines set forth in the ACOG Committee Opinion recommend that selected high-risk patients (patients with preterm labor or preterm premature rupture of membranes) be tested for GBS at the time of initial presentation. All other women should be tested for GBS during the interval 36 0/7 to 37 6/7 weeks’ gestation.⁵ Testing at this point in pregnancy is almost 90% sensitive for identifying patients who will be colonized at the time of admission for labor if no more than 5 weeks elapse between the time the culture is obtained and labor begins. The positive predictive value of this test is 87%, and the negative predictive value is 96%.⁸

ACOG’s previous guidelines provided for testing at 35 rather than 36 weeks. The change in the recommendations was based on 2 factors. First, all women with unknown GBS status who may deliver before 37 weeks already should be targeted for prophylaxis. Second, the new 5-week window now will include women who deliver up to 41 weeks’ gestation. Given current obstetric practice in the US, delivery beyond 41 weeks is unlikely.⁵

At the present time, the best test for identification of GBS colonization is bacteriologic culture. A cotton swab is placed into the lower third of the vagina, streaked along the perineum, and then placed into the rectum. The swab is withdrawn, placed in a culturette tube, and transported to the laboratory. In the laboratory, the swab is cultured for approximately 24 hours in a nutrient broth and then subcultured on a selective blood agar plate. Failure to sample both the vagina and rectum or failure to use selective broth and selective blood agar will reduce the yield of positive cultures by approximately 50%.^5-7

In recent years, researchers have become interested in the use of rapid nucleic acid amplification tests for the identification of GBS. These tests perform well if the test protocol provides for an 18- to 24-hour incubation in nutrient broth prior to application of the nucleic acid probe. When the tests are performed without this enrichment phase, sensitivities are inferior to those associated with bacteriologic culture. In addition, because the rapid tests do not isolate the organisms, they do not allow for antibiotic sensitivity testing.^5-7

Continue to: “If I test positive for GBS, how and when will you treat me?”...

4. “If I test positive for GBS, how and when will you treat me?”

The current ACOG guidelines recommend that all colonized women be treated intrapartum with prophylactic antibiotics regardless of whether risk factors are present. Treatment should be started at the time of admission and continued until the infant is delivered.⁵

The drugs of choice for intrapartum prophylaxis are intravenous penicillin or ampicillin. If the patient has a mild allergy to penicillin, cefazolin is the appropriate alternative. If the patient has a severe allergy to penicillin, the 2 options are vancomycin or clindamycin. If the latter drug is used, the laboratory must perform sensitivity testing because 13% to 20% of strains of GBS may be resistant to clindamycin. The frequency of resistance to erythromycin now ranges from 25% to 32%. Thus, erythromycin is no longer used for intrapartum prophylaxis.^5-7,9

The appropriate intravenous dosages of these antibiotics are listed in the TABLE.⁵ The new ACOG guidelines have revised the previous recommendations for dosing of penicillin, eliminating the 2.5 million-unit dose. They also have revised the dosing recommendations for vancomyin, eliminating the previous recommendation of 1 g every 12 hours.⁵ The new recommendations regarding vancomycin are particularly important and are based, at least in part, on an interesting report from Onwuchuruba and colleagues.¹⁰ These authors studied maternal and cord blood concentrations of vancomycin in mother-infant dyads receiving either the original recommended dosage of vancomycin (1 g every 12 hours) or a dosage of 15 to 20 mg/kg every 8 hours. With standard dosing, only 9% of neonates had therapeutic vancomycin serum concentrations at delivery. With the 20 mg/kg dose of vancomycin, the percent of neonates with therapeutic serum concentrations of vancomycin increased to 80%.

5. “For how long must I be treated in labor before my baby will be protected by the antibiotics?”

The current ACOG Committee Opinion stresses the importance of treating the colonized mother for at least 4 hours prior to delivery.⁵ This recommendation is based primarily on the landmark report by De Cueto and colleagues.¹¹ These authors evaluated colonized women who received intrapartum prophylaxis at varying times prior to delivery. Their primary endpoint was the percentage of newborns who were colonized with GBS. If the mothers had received antibiotics for less than 1 hour prior to delivery, 46% of neonates were colonized. This figure was equal to the rate of colonization in neonates whose mothers received no antibiotics. When the interval was 1 to 2 hours, the percentage was 29%. When mothers had received antibiotics for 2 to 4 hours, the neonatal colonization rate fell to 2.9%. When antibiotics had been administered for greater than 4 hours, the rate of neonatal colonization was only 1.2%.

Fairlie and colleagues recently reported the results of another interesting investigation comparing the effectiveness of prophylaxis based on duration of treatment and choice of individual antibiotics.¹² Prophylaxis with penicillin or ampicillin for 4 hours or more was 91% effective in preventing early-onset neonatal infection in term infants and 86% effective in preventing infection in preterm infants. These outcomes were superior to the outcomes in both term and preterm infants who received penicillin or ampicillin for less than 4 hours.

Continue to: “If I were to have a scheduled CD before the onset of labor and/or ruptured membranes, would I still need to receive antibiotics?”...

6. “If I were to have a scheduled CD before the onset of labor and/or ruptured membranes, would I still need to receive antibiotics?”

If a mother is scheduled to have a CD, for example because of a prior cesarean or because of a persistent fetal malpresentation, she should still have a GBS culture at 36 0/7 to 37 6/7 weeks’ gestation. The information obtained from this culture may be of value to both the obstetrician and pediatrician if the patient experiences labor or rupture of membranes prior to her scheduled surgery. If she does not experience spontaneous labor prior to her scheduled date of surgery, she does not require specific GBS prophylaxis at the time of her operation.⁵ Rather, she should receive prophylactic antibiotics to prevent post–cesarean infection, ideally, the combination of cefazolin (2 g IV) plus azithromycin (500 mg IV).¹⁴ Cefazolin, of course, provides excellent coverage of GBS.

7. “If I am colonized with GBS and I receive treatment during labor, will my baby be safe after delivery?”

The interventions outlined above will prevent almost 90% of early-onset GBS infections, but they are not foolproof.^5-7,15,16 Successful management of the neonate is dependent upon several factors, including:^5-7

• gestational age
• presence of maternal chorioamnionitis
• presence or absence of risk factors for early-onset infection
• duration (adequacy) of maternal treatment during labor
• presence of immediate clinical signs of infection in the neonate (such as fever, lethargy, hemodynamic instability, respiratory distress, or elevated or decreased white blood cell count).

If the mother is at term and receives intrapartum prophylaxis for at least 4 hours prior to delivery, the neonate usually will not require any special tests and simply will be observed for 24 to 48 hours for signs of infection.

If the mother delivers preterm and receives appropriate intrapartum prophylaxis, the pediatricians typically will obtain a complete blood count (CBC) and treat with prophylactic antibiotics (ampicillin plus gentamicin) for 48 hours if abnormalities are noted on the CBC or the baby exhibits signs of infection. If the CBC is normal and the baby shows no signs of infection, no treatment is indicated.

Regardless of gestational age, if the mother does not receive prophylaxis for at least 4 hours before delivery, the pediatricians usually will obtain a CBC and closely observe the baby in the hospital for signs of infection. If such signs develop or the CBC is abnormal, blood and cerebrospinal fluid cultures will be obtained. Antibiotic therapy (usually ampicillin plus gentamicin) is then initiated, and the drugs are continued until cultures return with no growth. If either culture is positive, antibiotics will then be continued for 7 to 10 days.

If the mother has documented chorioamnionitis and receives treatment intrapartum with appropriate antibiotics (usually ampicillin plus gentamicin), the pediatricians usually will obtain a CBC, C-reactive protein (CRP) level, and blood cultures and then start the infant on antibiotics, pending the result of the laboratory tests. If the CBC and CRP are reassuring, the cultures are negative after 48 hours, and the infant demonstrates no signs of clinical infection, many pediatricians will then discontinue antibiotics. Others may still continue the antibiotics for 7 to 10 days.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) generally is defined as any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy.^1-14 The best approach and exact criteria to use for GDM screening and diagnosis are under worldwide debate. In TABLE 1 we present just some of the many differing suggestions by varying organizations.^{2,7-9,11,12,15-17} The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, for instance, suggests a Two Step approach to diagnosis.¹⁵ We will make the argument in this article, however, that diagnosis should be defined universally as an abnormal result with the One Step 75-g glucose testing, as adopted by the World Health Organization, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and others. Approximately 8% of all pregnancies are complicated by GDM by the One Step test in the United States.^18-22 The prevalence may range from 1% to 14% of all pregnancies, depending on the population studied and the diagnostic tests employed.^1,19

Diagnostic options

Different methods for screening and diagnosis of GDM have been proposed by international societies; there is controversy regarding the diagnosis of GDM by either the One Step or the Two Step approach.⁶

The One Step approach includes an oral glucose tolerance test with a 75-g glucose load with measurement of plasma glucose concentration at fasting state and 1 hour and 2 hours post–glucose administration. A positive result for the One Step approach is defined as at least 1 measurement higher than 92, 180, or 153 mg/dL at fasting, 1 hour, or 2 hours, respectively.

The Two Step approach includes a nonfasting oral 50-g glucose load, with a glucose blood measurement 1 hour later. A positive screening, defined often as a blood glucose value higher than 135 mg/dL (range, 130 to 140 mg/dL), is followed by a diagnostic test with a 100-g glucose load with measurements at fasting and 1, 2, and 3 hours post–glucose administration. A positive diagnostic test is defined as 2 measurements higher than the target value.

Why we support the One Step test

There are several reasons to prefer the One Step approach for the diagnosis of GDM, compared with the Two Step approach.

Women testing negative for GDM with Two Step still experience complications pregnancy. Women who test positive for GDM with the One Step test, but negative with the Two Step test, despite having therefore a milder degree of glucose intolerance, do have a higher risk of experiencing several complications.²³ For the mother, these complications include gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, and cesarean delivery. The baby also can experience problems at birth (TABLE 2).²³ Therefore, women who test positive for GDM with the One Step test deserve to be diagnosed with and treated for the condition, as not only are they at risk for these complications but also treatment of the GDM decreases the incidence of these complications.^18,19

Continue to: US guidelines should be reconsidered...

US guidelines should be reconsidered

The One Step, 75-g, 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test is universally used to diagnose diabetes mellitus outside of pregnancy. Given our many noted reasons (TABLE 3), we recommend universal screening of GDM by using the One Step approach. It is time, indeed, for the United States to reconsider its guidelines for screening for GDM.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) generally is defined as any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy.^1-14 The best approach and exact criteria to use for GDM screening and diagnosis are under worldwide debate. In TABLE 1 we present just some of the many differing suggestions by varying organizations.^{2,7-9,11,12,15-17} The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, for instance, suggests a Two Step approach to diagnosis.¹⁵ We will make the argument in this article, however, that diagnosis should be defined universally as an abnormal result with the One Step 75-g glucose testing, as adopted by the World Health Organization, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and others. Approximately 8% of all pregnancies are complicated by GDM by the One Step test in the United States.^18-22 The prevalence may range from 1% to 14% of all pregnancies, depending on the population studied and the diagnostic tests employed.^1,19

Diagnostic options

Different methods for screening and diagnosis of GDM have been proposed by international societies; there is controversy regarding the diagnosis of GDM by either the One Step or the Two Step approach.⁶

The One Step approach includes an oral glucose tolerance test with a 75-g glucose load with measurement of plasma glucose concentration at fasting state and 1 hour and 2 hours post–glucose administration. A positive result for the One Step approach is defined as at least 1 measurement higher than 92, 180, or 153 mg/dL at fasting, 1 hour, or 2 hours, respectively.

The Two Step approach includes a nonfasting oral 50-g glucose load, with a glucose blood measurement 1 hour later. A positive screening, defined often as a blood glucose value higher than 135 mg/dL (range, 130 to 140 mg/dL), is followed by a diagnostic test with a 100-g glucose load with measurements at fasting and 1, 2, and 3 hours post–glucose administration. A positive diagnostic test is defined as 2 measurements higher than the target value.

Why we support the One Step test

There are several reasons to prefer the One Step approach for the diagnosis of GDM, compared with the Two Step approach.

Women testing negative for GDM with Two Step still experience complications pregnancy. Women who test positive for GDM with the One Step test, but negative with the Two Step test, despite having therefore a milder degree of glucose intolerance, do have a higher risk of experiencing several complications.²³ For the mother, these complications include gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, and cesarean delivery. The baby also can experience problems at birth (TABLE 2).²³ Therefore, women who test positive for GDM with the One Step test deserve to be diagnosed with and treated for the condition, as not only are they at risk for these complications but also treatment of the GDM decreases the incidence of these complications.^18,19

Continue to: US guidelines should be reconsidered...

US guidelines should be reconsidered

The One Step, 75-g, 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test is universally used to diagnose diabetes mellitus outside of pregnancy. Given our many noted reasons (TABLE 3), we recommend universal screening of GDM by using the One Step approach. It is time, indeed, for the United States to reconsider its guidelines for screening for GDM.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) generally is defined as any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy.^1-14 The best approach and exact criteria to use for GDM screening and diagnosis are under worldwide debate. In TABLE 1 we present just some of the many differing suggestions by varying organizations.^{2,7-9,11,12,15-17} The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, for instance, suggests a Two Step approach to diagnosis.¹⁵ We will make the argument in this article, however, that diagnosis should be defined universally as an abnormal result with the One Step 75-g glucose testing, as adopted by the World Health Organization, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and others. Approximately 8% of all pregnancies are complicated by GDM by the One Step test in the United States.^18-22 The prevalence may range from 1% to 14% of all pregnancies, depending on the population studied and the diagnostic tests employed.^1,19

Diagnostic options

Different methods for screening and diagnosis of GDM have been proposed by international societies; there is controversy regarding the diagnosis of GDM by either the One Step or the Two Step approach.⁶

The One Step approach includes an oral glucose tolerance test with a 75-g glucose load with measurement of plasma glucose concentration at fasting state and 1 hour and 2 hours post–glucose administration. A positive result for the One Step approach is defined as at least 1 measurement higher than 92, 180, or 153 mg/dL at fasting, 1 hour, or 2 hours, respectively.

The Two Step approach includes a nonfasting oral 50-g glucose load, with a glucose blood measurement 1 hour later. A positive screening, defined often as a blood glucose value higher than 135 mg/dL (range, 130 to 140 mg/dL), is followed by a diagnostic test with a 100-g glucose load with measurements at fasting and 1, 2, and 3 hours post–glucose administration. A positive diagnostic test is defined as 2 measurements higher than the target value.

Why we support the One Step test

There are several reasons to prefer the One Step approach for the diagnosis of GDM, compared with the Two Step approach.

Women testing negative for GDM with Two Step still experience complications pregnancy. Women who test positive for GDM with the One Step test, but negative with the Two Step test, despite having therefore a milder degree of glucose intolerance, do have a higher risk of experiencing several complications.²³ For the mother, these complications include gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, and cesarean delivery. The baby also can experience problems at birth (TABLE 2).²³ Therefore, women who test positive for GDM with the One Step test deserve to be diagnosed with and treated for the condition, as not only are they at risk for these complications but also treatment of the GDM decreases the incidence of these complications.^18,19

Continue to: US guidelines should be reconsidered...

US guidelines should be reconsidered

The One Step, 75-g, 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test is universally used to diagnose diabetes mellitus outside of pregnancy. Given our many noted reasons (TABLE 3), we recommend universal screening of GDM by using the One Step approach. It is time, indeed, for the United States to reconsider its guidelines for screening for GDM.

Chappell LC, Brocklehurst P, Green ME, et al; PHOENIX Study Group. Planned early delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;394:1181-1190.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Preeclampsia is a common hypertensive disorder of pregnancy. Among women who develop the disease at late preterm gestation, the question remains, “What is the optimal timing for delivery?” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) categorizes preeclampsia as “with and without severe features.”¹ Delivery is recommended for women with preeclampsia with severe features at or beyond 34 weeks’ gestation, and for women with preeclampsia without severe features at or beyond 37 weeks’ gestation.¹ For patients with fetal growth restriction and preeclampsia, ACOG also recommends delivery between 34 and 37 weeks’ gestation.

Details of the study

Chappell and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial among women with singleton or dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancy between 34 and 36.6 weeks’ gestation. Women were assigned to either planned delivery within 48 hours of randomization or expectant management until 37 weeks or earlier with clinical deterioration.

Among the 901 women included in the study, 450 were allocated to planned delivery and 451 to expectant management.

Study outcomes. The co-primary short-term maternal outcome was a composite of maternal morbidity with the addition of recorded systolic blood pressure of at least 160 mm Hg postrandomization (on any occasion). The co-primary short-term perinatal outcome was a composite of neonatal deaths within 7 days of delivery and perinatal deaths or neonatal unit admissions.

Participant details. At baseline, the average gestational age at randomization was 35.6 weeks, with equal distribution through the 3 weeks (34 through 36 weeks). About 37% of the women had severe hypertension (≥ 160 mm Hg) in the previous 48 hours prior to randomization, and approximately 22% had fetal growth restriction. The authors did not categorize the women based on severe features of preeclampsia.

Results. The investigators found that the proportion of women with the maternal co-primary outcome was significantly lower in the planned delivery group compared with the expectant management group (65% vs 75%), and the proportion of infants with the perinatal co-primary outcome was significantly higher in the planned delivery group compared with the expectant management group (42% vs 34%). The fact that early delivery led to more neonatal unit admissions for the infant, principally for a listed indication of prematurity and without an excess of respiratory or other morbidity, intensity of care, or length of stay, is very reassuring.

Study strengths and limitations

This is the largest study of women in this group allocated, randomized, and multicenter investigation addressing a very important clinical question. The patient population was mostly white, with only 13% black women, and had an average body mass index of 29 kg/m² (which is low compared with many practices in the United States). The average difference between the 2 study groups was the additional prolongation of pregnancy from enrollment to delivery of only 3 days, which may not be clinically relevant. More than half of the women in the expectant management group had medically indicated delivery before 37 weeks’ gestation.

Continue to: A limitation of this study...

A limitation of this study is that all women with preeclampsia were considered the same—that is, no distinction was made between severe and nonsevere preeclampsia, and a significant proportion of women had severe hypertension at enrollment, which would make them ineligible for expectant management anyway.

The maternal composite outcome was driven mostly by severe hypertension and progression to severe preeclampsia (likely driven by severe hypertension). All other maternal outcomes were very rare or did not happen; however, the incidence of delivery indications for various preeclampsia-related complications was higher in the expectant management group.

The takeaway

In the absence of biomarkers for risk stratification and treatment of preeclampsia, delivering women who have a diagnosis of preeclampsia at or beyond 34 weeks’ gestation may be a viable option for preventing maternal complications.

Chappell LC, Brocklehurst P, Green ME, et al; PHOENIX Study Group. Planned early delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;394:1181-1190.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Preeclampsia is a common hypertensive disorder of pregnancy. Among women who develop the disease at late preterm gestation, the question remains, “What is the optimal timing for delivery?” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) categorizes preeclampsia as “with and without severe features.”¹ Delivery is recommended for women with preeclampsia with severe features at or beyond 34 weeks’ gestation, and for women with preeclampsia without severe features at or beyond 37 weeks’ gestation.¹ For patients with fetal growth restriction and preeclampsia, ACOG also recommends delivery between 34 and 37 weeks’ gestation.

Details of the study

Chappell and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial among women with singleton or dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancy between 34 and 36.6 weeks’ gestation. Women were assigned to either planned delivery within 48 hours of randomization or expectant management until 37 weeks or earlier with clinical deterioration.

Among the 901 women included in the study, 450 were allocated to planned delivery and 451 to expectant management.

Study outcomes. The co-primary short-term maternal outcome was a composite of maternal morbidity with the addition of recorded systolic blood pressure of at least 160 mm Hg postrandomization (on any occasion). The co-primary short-term perinatal outcome was a composite of neonatal deaths within 7 days of delivery and perinatal deaths or neonatal unit admissions.

Participant details. At baseline, the average gestational age at randomization was 35.6 weeks, with equal distribution through the 3 weeks (34 through 36 weeks). About 37% of the women had severe hypertension (≥ 160 mm Hg) in the previous 48 hours prior to randomization, and approximately 22% had fetal growth restriction. The authors did not categorize the women based on severe features of preeclampsia.

Results. The investigators found that the proportion of women with the maternal co-primary outcome was significantly lower in the planned delivery group compared with the expectant management group (65% vs 75%), and the proportion of infants with the perinatal co-primary outcome was significantly higher in the planned delivery group compared with the expectant management group (42% vs 34%). The fact that early delivery led to more neonatal unit admissions for the infant, principally for a listed indication of prematurity and without an excess of respiratory or other morbidity, intensity of care, or length of stay, is very reassuring.

Study strengths and limitations

This is the largest study of women in this group allocated, randomized, and multicenter investigation addressing a very important clinical question. The patient population was mostly white, with only 13% black women, and had an average body mass index of 29 kg/m² (which is low compared with many practices in the United States). The average difference between the 2 study groups was the additional prolongation of pregnancy from enrollment to delivery of only 3 days, which may not be clinically relevant. More than half of the women in the expectant management group had medically indicated delivery before 37 weeks’ gestation.

Continue to: A limitation of this study...

A limitation of this study is that all women with preeclampsia were considered the same—that is, no distinction was made between severe and nonsevere preeclampsia, and a significant proportion of women had severe hypertension at enrollment, which would make them ineligible for expectant management anyway.

The maternal composite outcome was driven mostly by severe hypertension and progression to severe preeclampsia (likely driven by severe hypertension). All other maternal outcomes were very rare or did not happen; however, the incidence of delivery indications for various preeclampsia-related complications was higher in the expectant management group.

The takeaway

In the absence of biomarkers for risk stratification and treatment of preeclampsia, delivering women who have a diagnosis of preeclampsia at or beyond 34 weeks’ gestation may be a viable option for preventing maternal complications.

Chappell LC, Brocklehurst P, Green ME, et al; PHOENIX Study Group. Planned early delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;394:1181-1190.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Preeclampsia is a common hypertensive disorder of pregnancy. Among women who develop the disease at late preterm gestation, the question remains, “What is the optimal timing for delivery?” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) categorizes preeclampsia as “with and without severe features.”¹ Delivery is recommended for women with preeclampsia with severe features at or beyond 34 weeks’ gestation, and for women with preeclampsia without severe features at or beyond 37 weeks’ gestation.¹ For patients with fetal growth restriction and preeclampsia, ACOG also recommends delivery between 34 and 37 weeks’ gestation.

Details of the study

Chappell and colleagues conducted a randomized controlled trial among women with singleton or dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancy between 34 and 36.6 weeks’ gestation. Women were assigned to either planned delivery within 48 hours of randomization or expectant management until 37 weeks or earlier with clinical deterioration.

Among the 901 women included in the study, 450 were allocated to planned delivery and 451 to expectant management.

Study outcomes. The co-primary short-term maternal outcome was a composite of maternal morbidity with the addition of recorded systolic blood pressure of at least 160 mm Hg postrandomization (on any occasion). The co-primary short-term perinatal outcome was a composite of neonatal deaths within 7 days of delivery and perinatal deaths or neonatal unit admissions.

Participant details. At baseline, the average gestational age at randomization was 35.6 weeks, with equal distribution through the 3 weeks (34 through 36 weeks). About 37% of the women had severe hypertension (≥ 160 mm Hg) in the previous 48 hours prior to randomization, and approximately 22% had fetal growth restriction. The authors did not categorize the women based on severe features of preeclampsia.

Results. The investigators found that the proportion of women with the maternal co-primary outcome was significantly lower in the planned delivery group compared with the expectant management group (65% vs 75%), and the proportion of infants with the perinatal co-primary outcome was significantly higher in the planned delivery group compared with the expectant management group (42% vs 34%). The fact that early delivery led to more neonatal unit admissions for the infant, principally for a listed indication of prematurity and without an excess of respiratory or other morbidity, intensity of care, or length of stay, is very reassuring.

Study strengths and limitations

This is the largest study of women in this group allocated, randomized, and multicenter investigation addressing a very important clinical question. The patient population was mostly white, with only 13% black women, and had an average body mass index of 29 kg/m² (which is low compared with many practices in the United States). The average difference between the 2 study groups was the additional prolongation of pregnancy from enrollment to delivery of only 3 days, which may not be clinically relevant. More than half of the women in the expectant management group had medically indicated delivery before 37 weeks’ gestation.

Continue to: A limitation of this study...

A limitation of this study is that all women with preeclampsia were considered the same—that is, no distinction was made between severe and nonsevere preeclampsia, and a significant proportion of women had severe hypertension at enrollment, which would make them ineligible for expectant management anyway.

The maternal composite outcome was driven mostly by severe hypertension and progression to severe preeclampsia (likely driven by severe hypertension). All other maternal outcomes were very rare or did not happen; however, the incidence of delivery indications for various preeclampsia-related complications was higher in the expectant management group.

The takeaway

In the absence of biomarkers for risk stratification and treatment of preeclampsia, delivering women who have a diagnosis of preeclampsia at or beyond 34 weeks’ gestation may be a viable option for preventing maternal complications.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a common and debilitating inflammatory disorder of the pilosebaceous unit that presents with recurrent scarring inflammatory nodules and sinus tracts in the intertriginous folds of the body. It is a complex condition that requires multimodal management to address the medical, surgical, and psychosocial needs of affected patients. However, it can be difficult to coordinate all that goes into HS management beyond the standard therapeutic ladder of topical and oral antimicrobials, intralesional corticosteroids, biologics, and surgery. In this article, I will outline 5 important aspects of HS treatment that often are overlooked.

Talk About Pathophysiology

Patients with HS often have limited understanding of their condition. One common misperception is that HS is an infectious disease and that disease activity is associated with poor hygiene.¹ Dispelling this myth may help patients avoid unnecessary hygiene practices, decrease perceived stigma, and enhance your therapeutic alliance.

The current model of HS pathophysiology implicates an aberrant inflammatory response to the cutaneous bacterial microbiome, which leads to follicular occlusion and then rupture of debris and bacteria into the surrounding dermis. Immune cells and inflammatory mediators such as nuclear factor κB and tumor necrosis factor α respond to the disruption. Chronic lesions develop due to tissue repair with scarring and re-epithelialization.^2,3 Although most patients probably are not interested in the esoteric details, I typically make a point of explaining to patients that HS is a chronic inflammatory disease and provide reassurance that it is not a sign of poor hygiene. 

Counsel on Smoking Cessation

Most HS patients use tobacco. As many as 75% of HS patients are active smokers and another 10% to 15% are former smokers. Although there is mixed evidence that disease activity correlates with smoking status, the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation in the United States and Canada concluded in the 2019 North American Clinical Management Guidelines for Hidradenitis Suppurativa that due to the overall health risks of smoking, we should recommend cessation to our patients.⁴

Laser Hair Removal Works

Don’t forget about laser hair removal! Evidence from randomized controlled trials supports the use of the Nd:YAG laser in the treatment of HS. Treat the entire affected anatomic area and use stacked double pulses on active nodules (typical settings: 10-mm spot size; 10-millisecond pulse duration and 35–50 J/cm² in Fitzpatrick skin types I–III; 20-millisecond pulse duration and 25–40 J/cm² in Fitzpatrick skin types IV–VI).⁴ Especially if it is covered by your patient’s insurance, Nd:YAG is a great adjunctive treatment to consider. The guidelines also recommend long-pulsed alexandrite and diode lasers as well as intense pulsed light, all of which result in follicular destruction, though these treatments have less supporting evidence.⁴

Have a Plan for Flares

Intralesional injection of triamcinolone is a mainstay of HS treatment and provides patients with rapid relief of symptoms during a flare.⁵ One case series found that there was a notable decrease in pain, size, and drainage after just 1 day of treatment with intralesional triamcinolone 10 mg/mL (0.2–2.0 mL).⁶

Intralesional steroid injection is a great tool for quieting an active disease flare while simultaneously instating ongoing treatment for preventive management. However, even when disease control is optimized, patients may still experience intermittent flares of disease. For some patients, it may be appropriate to have a plan in place for a return to clinic during the beginning of a flare to obtain intralesional steroids. The ability to come in on short notice may help avoid visits to the emergency department and urgent care where your patients may receive treatments such as short courses of antibiotics or incision and drainage that may deviate from your overall treatment plan.

Consider Childbearing Status

Don’t forget to consider childbearing plans and childbearing potential when treating female patients with HS. Pregnancy is a frequent consideration in HS patients, as HS affects 3 to 4 times more women than men and typically presents after puberty (second or third decades of life). Many of the medications in the HS armamentarium are contraindicated in pregnancy including tetracyclines, retinoids, and hormonal agents. Surgery should be avoided in pregnant patients whenever possible, particularly in the first trimester. Relatively safe options include topical antibiotics such as clindamycin and metronidazole, as well as tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, which are classified as category B in pregnancy.⁵

Before making treatment decisions in pregnant and breastfeeding patients, consult the US Food and Drug Administration recommendations. Perng et al⁷ reviewed current management strategies for HS in pregnant and breastfeeding women, and their review article in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology is an excellent resource.

Final Thoughts

Comprehensive management of HS may include a combination of medication and procedures, lifestyle modification, management of comorbidities, and social support. Formulating a good treatment plan may be a challenge but can drastically improve your patient’s quality of life.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a common and debilitating inflammatory disorder of the pilosebaceous unit that presents with recurrent scarring inflammatory nodules and sinus tracts in the intertriginous folds of the body. It is a complex condition that requires multimodal management to address the medical, surgical, and psychosocial needs of affected patients. However, it can be difficult to coordinate all that goes into HS management beyond the standard therapeutic ladder of topical and oral antimicrobials, intralesional corticosteroids, biologics, and surgery. In this article, I will outline 5 important aspects of HS treatment that often are overlooked.

Talk About Pathophysiology

Patients with HS often have limited understanding of their condition. One common misperception is that HS is an infectious disease and that disease activity is associated with poor hygiene.¹ Dispelling this myth may help patients avoid unnecessary hygiene practices, decrease perceived stigma, and enhance your therapeutic alliance.

The current model of HS pathophysiology implicates an aberrant inflammatory response to the cutaneous bacterial microbiome, which leads to follicular occlusion and then rupture of debris and bacteria into the surrounding dermis. Immune cells and inflammatory mediators such as nuclear factor κB and tumor necrosis factor α respond to the disruption. Chronic lesions develop due to tissue repair with scarring and re-epithelialization.^2,3 Although most patients probably are not interested in the esoteric details, I typically make a point of explaining to patients that HS is a chronic inflammatory disease and provide reassurance that it is not a sign of poor hygiene. 

Counsel on Smoking Cessation

Most HS patients use tobacco. As many as 75% of HS patients are active smokers and another 10% to 15% are former smokers. Although there is mixed evidence that disease activity correlates with smoking status, the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation in the United States and Canada concluded in the 2019 North American Clinical Management Guidelines for Hidradenitis Suppurativa that due to the overall health risks of smoking, we should recommend cessation to our patients.⁴

Laser Hair Removal Works

Don’t forget about laser hair removal! Evidence from randomized controlled trials supports the use of the Nd:YAG laser in the treatment of HS. Treat the entire affected anatomic area and use stacked double pulses on active nodules (typical settings: 10-mm spot size; 10-millisecond pulse duration and 35–50 J/cm² in Fitzpatrick skin types I–III; 20-millisecond pulse duration and 25–40 J/cm² in Fitzpatrick skin types IV–VI).⁴ Especially if it is covered by your patient’s insurance, Nd:YAG is a great adjunctive treatment to consider. The guidelines also recommend long-pulsed alexandrite and diode lasers as well as intense pulsed light, all of which result in follicular destruction, though these treatments have less supporting evidence.⁴

Have a Plan for Flares

Intralesional injection of triamcinolone is a mainstay of HS treatment and provides patients with rapid relief of symptoms during a flare.⁵ One case series found that there was a notable decrease in pain, size, and drainage after just 1 day of treatment with intralesional triamcinolone 10 mg/mL (0.2–2.0 mL).⁶

Intralesional steroid injection is a great tool for quieting an active disease flare while simultaneously instating ongoing treatment for preventive management. However, even when disease control is optimized, patients may still experience intermittent flares of disease. For some patients, it may be appropriate to have a plan in place for a return to clinic during the beginning of a flare to obtain intralesional steroids. The ability to come in on short notice may help avoid visits to the emergency department and urgent care where your patients may receive treatments such as short courses of antibiotics or incision and drainage that may deviate from your overall treatment plan.

Consider Childbearing Status

Don’t forget to consider childbearing plans and childbearing potential when treating female patients with HS. Pregnancy is a frequent consideration in HS patients, as HS affects 3 to 4 times more women than men and typically presents after puberty (second or third decades of life). Many of the medications in the HS armamentarium are contraindicated in pregnancy including tetracyclines, retinoids, and hormonal agents. Surgery should be avoided in pregnant patients whenever possible, particularly in the first trimester. Relatively safe options include topical antibiotics such as clindamycin and metronidazole, as well as tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, which are classified as category B in pregnancy.⁵

Before making treatment decisions in pregnant and breastfeeding patients, consult the US Food and Drug Administration recommendations. Perng et al⁷ reviewed current management strategies for HS in pregnant and breastfeeding women, and their review article in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology is an excellent resource.

Final Thoughts

Comprehensive management of HS may include a combination of medication and procedures, lifestyle modification, management of comorbidities, and social support. Formulating a good treatment plan may be a challenge but can drastically improve your patient’s quality of life.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a common and debilitating inflammatory disorder of the pilosebaceous unit that presents with recurrent scarring inflammatory nodules and sinus tracts in the intertriginous folds of the body. It is a complex condition that requires multimodal management to address the medical, surgical, and psychosocial needs of affected patients. However, it can be difficult to coordinate all that goes into HS management beyond the standard therapeutic ladder of topical and oral antimicrobials, intralesional corticosteroids, biologics, and surgery. In this article, I will outline 5 important aspects of HS treatment that often are overlooked.

Talk About Pathophysiology

Patients with HS often have limited understanding of their condition. One common misperception is that HS is an infectious disease and that disease activity is associated with poor hygiene.¹ Dispelling this myth may help patients avoid unnecessary hygiene practices, decrease perceived stigma, and enhance your therapeutic alliance.

The current model of HS pathophysiology implicates an aberrant inflammatory response to the cutaneous bacterial microbiome, which leads to follicular occlusion and then rupture of debris and bacteria into the surrounding dermis. Immune cells and inflammatory mediators such as nuclear factor κB and tumor necrosis factor α respond to the disruption. Chronic lesions develop due to tissue repair with scarring and re-epithelialization.^2,3 Although most patients probably are not interested in the esoteric details, I typically make a point of explaining to patients that HS is a chronic inflammatory disease and provide reassurance that it is not a sign of poor hygiene. 

Counsel on Smoking Cessation

Most HS patients use tobacco. As many as 75% of HS patients are active smokers and another 10% to 15% are former smokers. Although there is mixed evidence that disease activity correlates with smoking status, the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation in the United States and Canada concluded in the 2019 North American Clinical Management Guidelines for Hidradenitis Suppurativa that due to the overall health risks of smoking, we should recommend cessation to our patients.⁴

Laser Hair Removal Works

Don’t forget about laser hair removal! Evidence from randomized controlled trials supports the use of the Nd:YAG laser in the treatment of HS. Treat the entire affected anatomic area and use stacked double pulses on active nodules (typical settings: 10-mm spot size; 10-millisecond pulse duration and 35–50 J/cm² in Fitzpatrick skin types I–III; 20-millisecond pulse duration and 25–40 J/cm² in Fitzpatrick skin types IV–VI).⁴ Especially if it is covered by your patient’s insurance, Nd:YAG is a great adjunctive treatment to consider. The guidelines also recommend long-pulsed alexandrite and diode lasers as well as intense pulsed light, all of which result in follicular destruction, though these treatments have less supporting evidence.⁴

Have a Plan for Flares

Intralesional injection of triamcinolone is a mainstay of HS treatment and provides patients with rapid relief of symptoms during a flare.⁵ One case series found that there was a notable decrease in pain, size, and drainage after just 1 day of treatment with intralesional triamcinolone 10 mg/mL (0.2–2.0 mL).⁶

Intralesional steroid injection is a great tool for quieting an active disease flare while simultaneously instating ongoing treatment for preventive management. However, even when disease control is optimized, patients may still experience intermittent flares of disease. For some patients, it may be appropriate to have a plan in place for a return to clinic during the beginning of a flare to obtain intralesional steroids. The ability to come in on short notice may help avoid visits to the emergency department and urgent care where your patients may receive treatments such as short courses of antibiotics or incision and drainage that may deviate from your overall treatment plan.

Consider Childbearing Status

Don’t forget to consider childbearing plans and childbearing potential when treating female patients with HS. Pregnancy is a frequent consideration in HS patients, as HS affects 3 to 4 times more women than men and typically presents after puberty (second or third decades of life). Many of the medications in the HS armamentarium are contraindicated in pregnancy including tetracyclines, retinoids, and hormonal agents. Surgery should be avoided in pregnant patients whenever possible, particularly in the first trimester. Relatively safe options include topical antibiotics such as clindamycin and metronidazole, as well as tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, which are classified as category B in pregnancy.⁵

Before making treatment decisions in pregnant and breastfeeding patients, consult the US Food and Drug Administration recommendations. Perng et al⁷ reviewed current management strategies for HS in pregnant and breastfeeding women, and their review article in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology is an excellent resource.

Final Thoughts

Comprehensive management of HS may include a combination of medication and procedures, lifestyle modification, management of comorbidities, and social support. Formulating a good treatment plan may be a challenge but can drastically improve your patient’s quality of life.