MDedge ObGyn

As more and more treatments for obesity become available, what does the future hold for these patients? Here are five things that clinicians need to know.

1. Public health officials will prioritize dietary quality over quantity.

Dietitians, healthcare providers, and scientists are already prioritizing the quality of calories, and now policymakers are aligning with this goal, with calls for more research on ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to answer the key question, “Why do UPFs cause people to eat 500 more calories per day compared with unprocessed foods?” The food industry has taken notice of the potential “Ozempic effect” associated with reduced spending on groceries and is responding with product lines “designed to complement” glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) while simultaneously lobbying against any UPF reform. However, with emerging data on how sugar taxes may reduce sales and Congress honing in on the diabetes epidemic, we are hopeful that change is coming in 2024.

2. Antiobesity medications will target fat loss instead of weight loss.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration requires antiobesity medications to prove safe weight loss of ≥ 5% over placebo. The focus on weight has been long-standing, but with highly effective medications like tirzepatide causing about 20% weight loss, attention is shifting to body composition — namely, how do we optimize fat loss while preserving muscle? We are seeing this transition in the research community. Bimagrumab, for example, a once-monthly injection that increases muscle mass and decreases fat mass, is being tested in a phase 3 clinical trial alongside semaglutide. Agents initially designed for spinal muscular atrophy, like apitegromab and taldefgrobep alfa, are being repurposed for obesity. Watch for results of these phase 2 trials in 2024.

3. Increasing energy expenditure is the holy grail of obesity research.

The success of GLP-1 RAs, and the even greater success of dual- and triple-target agents like tirzepatide and retatrutide, tells us that obesity is, indeed, a hormone problem. These medications primarily cause weight loss by suppressing appetite and reducing caloric intake. As scientists develop more therapeutics to normalize appetite regulation, attention will shift to optimizing energy expenditure. Researchers are already investigating brown fat, mitochondrial uncouplers, and skeletal muscle metabolism, but no agent thus far has been proven to be both safe and effective in increasing energy expenditure. Of these, keep an eye on clinical trials involving brown fat and the excitement over the anti-inflammatory cytokine growth differentiating factor 15 (GDF15).

4. Chronic disease without chronic medications.

Obesity is a chronic disease, just like hypertension or diabetes. Similarly, medications that treat chronic diseases are expected to be taken long-term because discontinuation often results in disease recurrence. However, obesity research is getting closer and closer to options that require less frequent administration. Bimagrumab, for example, is a once-monthly injection. In endocrinology, the premier example is osteoporosis: Osteoporosis can be treated with just 3 years of an annual injection and never require treatment again. In obesity, anticipate more basic science discoveries aimed at developing safe and specific treatments that are truly disease-modifying — ones that reverse appetitive dysregulation, reduce proinflammatory adiposity, and optimize anabolic metabolism.

5. Barriers to access are barriers to progress.

The biggest challenge to obesity treatment today is access: drug shortages, medication costs, and lack of obesity medicine providers. Shortages of medications like semaglutide 2.4 mg are being driven by high “demand”; in other words, manufacturers failed to anticipate the massive interest in antiobesity medications.

Medicare and most state Medicaid programs don’t cover these medications; commercial payers are refusing, reversing, or limiting coverage. An out-of-pocket monthly cost over $1000 limits affordability for the majority of Americans.

Seeking care from an obesity medicine doctor is a challenge as well. Over 40% of US adults have obesity, but less than 1% of doctors are certified in obesity medicine. Meanwhile, private equity is eager to address the lack of access through compounding pharmacies, medispas, or telemedicine services, but the quality of care varies greatly. Some companies purposely avoid the term “patient,” preferring ethics-free labels like “consumers” or “members.”

The $100 billion–dollar weight loss industry unfortunately has created financial incentives that drive obesity commerce over obesity care. Because of these barriers, the epidemic of obesity, with a prevalence projected to be 50% by 2030, will not be solved or slowed despite the scientific progress in obesity treatment. A single silver lining exists among policymakers who are aiming to correct our costly sick-care system in steps, starting with pharmacy benefit manager reform. Five of these bills are the ones to track in 2024: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act, Pharmacy Benefits Manager Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Sunshine and Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, and Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.

I believe that these five things will have the most impact on the treatment of our patients with obesity. Stay tuned throughout the year as I share updates in obesity research, pharmacotherapy, and public policy.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As more and more treatments for obesity become available, what does the future hold for these patients? Here are five things that clinicians need to know.

1. Public health officials will prioritize dietary quality over quantity.

Dietitians, healthcare providers, and scientists are already prioritizing the quality of calories, and now policymakers are aligning with this goal, with calls for more research on ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to answer the key question, “Why do UPFs cause people to eat 500 more calories per day compared with unprocessed foods?” The food industry has taken notice of the potential “Ozempic effect” associated with reduced spending on groceries and is responding with product lines “designed to complement” glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) while simultaneously lobbying against any UPF reform. However, with emerging data on how sugar taxes may reduce sales and Congress honing in on the diabetes epidemic, we are hopeful that change is coming in 2024.

2. Antiobesity medications will target fat loss instead of weight loss.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration requires antiobesity medications to prove safe weight loss of ≥ 5% over placebo. The focus on weight has been long-standing, but with highly effective medications like tirzepatide causing about 20% weight loss, attention is shifting to body composition — namely, how do we optimize fat loss while preserving muscle? We are seeing this transition in the research community. Bimagrumab, for example, a once-monthly injection that increases muscle mass and decreases fat mass, is being tested in a phase 3 clinical trial alongside semaglutide. Agents initially designed for spinal muscular atrophy, like apitegromab and taldefgrobep alfa, are being repurposed for obesity. Watch for results of these phase 2 trials in 2024.

3. Increasing energy expenditure is the holy grail of obesity research.

The success of GLP-1 RAs, and the even greater success of dual- and triple-target agents like tirzepatide and retatrutide, tells us that obesity is, indeed, a hormone problem. These medications primarily cause weight loss by suppressing appetite and reducing caloric intake. As scientists develop more therapeutics to normalize appetite regulation, attention will shift to optimizing energy expenditure. Researchers are already investigating brown fat, mitochondrial uncouplers, and skeletal muscle metabolism, but no agent thus far has been proven to be both safe and effective in increasing energy expenditure. Of these, keep an eye on clinical trials involving brown fat and the excitement over the anti-inflammatory cytokine growth differentiating factor 15 (GDF15).

4. Chronic disease without chronic medications.

Obesity is a chronic disease, just like hypertension or diabetes. Similarly, medications that treat chronic diseases are expected to be taken long-term because discontinuation often results in disease recurrence. However, obesity research is getting closer and closer to options that require less frequent administration. Bimagrumab, for example, is a once-monthly injection. In endocrinology, the premier example is osteoporosis: Osteoporosis can be treated with just 3 years of an annual injection and never require treatment again. In obesity, anticipate more basic science discoveries aimed at developing safe and specific treatments that are truly disease-modifying — ones that reverse appetitive dysregulation, reduce proinflammatory adiposity, and optimize anabolic metabolism.

5. Barriers to access are barriers to progress.

The biggest challenge to obesity treatment today is access: drug shortages, medication costs, and lack of obesity medicine providers. Shortages of medications like semaglutide 2.4 mg are being driven by high “demand”; in other words, manufacturers failed to anticipate the massive interest in antiobesity medications.

Medicare and most state Medicaid programs don’t cover these medications; commercial payers are refusing, reversing, or limiting coverage. An out-of-pocket monthly cost over $1000 limits affordability for the majority of Americans.

Seeking care from an obesity medicine doctor is a challenge as well. Over 40% of US adults have obesity, but less than 1% of doctors are certified in obesity medicine. Meanwhile, private equity is eager to address the lack of access through compounding pharmacies, medispas, or telemedicine services, but the quality of care varies greatly. Some companies purposely avoid the term “patient,” preferring ethics-free labels like “consumers” or “members.”

The $100 billion–dollar weight loss industry unfortunately has created financial incentives that drive obesity commerce over obesity care. Because of these barriers, the epidemic of obesity, with a prevalence projected to be 50% by 2030, will not be solved or slowed despite the scientific progress in obesity treatment. A single silver lining exists among policymakers who are aiming to correct our costly sick-care system in steps, starting with pharmacy benefit manager reform. Five of these bills are the ones to track in 2024: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act, Pharmacy Benefits Manager Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Sunshine and Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, and Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.

I believe that these five things will have the most impact on the treatment of our patients with obesity. Stay tuned throughout the year as I share updates in obesity research, pharmacotherapy, and public policy.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As more and more treatments for obesity become available, what does the future hold for these patients? Here are five things that clinicians need to know.

1. Public health officials will prioritize dietary quality over quantity.

Dietitians, healthcare providers, and scientists are already prioritizing the quality of calories, and now policymakers are aligning with this goal, with calls for more research on ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to answer the key question, “Why do UPFs cause people to eat 500 more calories per day compared with unprocessed foods?” The food industry has taken notice of the potential “Ozempic effect” associated with reduced spending on groceries and is responding with product lines “designed to complement” glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) while simultaneously lobbying against any UPF reform. However, with emerging data on how sugar taxes may reduce sales and Congress honing in on the diabetes epidemic, we are hopeful that change is coming in 2024.

2. Antiobesity medications will target fat loss instead of weight loss.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration requires antiobesity medications to prove safe weight loss of ≥ 5% over placebo. The focus on weight has been long-standing, but with highly effective medications like tirzepatide causing about 20% weight loss, attention is shifting to body composition — namely, how do we optimize fat loss while preserving muscle? We are seeing this transition in the research community. Bimagrumab, for example, a once-monthly injection that increases muscle mass and decreases fat mass, is being tested in a phase 3 clinical trial alongside semaglutide. Agents initially designed for spinal muscular atrophy, like apitegromab and taldefgrobep alfa, are being repurposed for obesity. Watch for results of these phase 2 trials in 2024.

3. Increasing energy expenditure is the holy grail of obesity research.

The success of GLP-1 RAs, and the even greater success of dual- and triple-target agents like tirzepatide and retatrutide, tells us that obesity is, indeed, a hormone problem. These medications primarily cause weight loss by suppressing appetite and reducing caloric intake. As scientists develop more therapeutics to normalize appetite regulation, attention will shift to optimizing energy expenditure. Researchers are already investigating brown fat, mitochondrial uncouplers, and skeletal muscle metabolism, but no agent thus far has been proven to be both safe and effective in increasing energy expenditure. Of these, keep an eye on clinical trials involving brown fat and the excitement over the anti-inflammatory cytokine growth differentiating factor 15 (GDF15).

4. Chronic disease without chronic medications.

Obesity is a chronic disease, just like hypertension or diabetes. Similarly, medications that treat chronic diseases are expected to be taken long-term because discontinuation often results in disease recurrence. However, obesity research is getting closer and closer to options that require less frequent administration. Bimagrumab, for example, is a once-monthly injection. In endocrinology, the premier example is osteoporosis: Osteoporosis can be treated with just 3 years of an annual injection and never require treatment again. In obesity, anticipate more basic science discoveries aimed at developing safe and specific treatments that are truly disease-modifying — ones that reverse appetitive dysregulation, reduce proinflammatory adiposity, and optimize anabolic metabolism.

5. Barriers to access are barriers to progress.

The biggest challenge to obesity treatment today is access: drug shortages, medication costs, and lack of obesity medicine providers. Shortages of medications like semaglutide 2.4 mg are being driven by high “demand”; in other words, manufacturers failed to anticipate the massive interest in antiobesity medications.

Medicare and most state Medicaid programs don’t cover these medications; commercial payers are refusing, reversing, or limiting coverage. An out-of-pocket monthly cost over $1000 limits affordability for the majority of Americans.

Seeking care from an obesity medicine doctor is a challenge as well. Over 40% of US adults have obesity, but less than 1% of doctors are certified in obesity medicine. Meanwhile, private equity is eager to address the lack of access through compounding pharmacies, medispas, or telemedicine services, but the quality of care varies greatly. Some companies purposely avoid the term “patient,” preferring ethics-free labels like “consumers” or “members.”

The $100 billion–dollar weight loss industry unfortunately has created financial incentives that drive obesity commerce over obesity care. Because of these barriers, the epidemic of obesity, with a prevalence projected to be 50% by 2030, will not be solved or slowed despite the scientific progress in obesity treatment. A single silver lining exists among policymakers who are aiming to correct our costly sick-care system in steps, starting with pharmacy benefit manager reform. Five of these bills are the ones to track in 2024: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act, Pharmacy Benefits Manager Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Sunshine and Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, and Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.

I believe that these five things will have the most impact on the treatment of our patients with obesity. Stay tuned throughout the year as I share updates in obesity research, pharmacotherapy, and public policy.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — A combination of oral antihyperglycemics was as effective as insulin for managing gestational diabetes, based on data from more than 800 individuals.

After diet control, both insulin and oral agents such as metformin and glibenclamide are used as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus, Doortje Rademaker, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands, said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting (abstract 28).

Oral antihyperglycemic agents (OAAs) are thought to be comparable to insulin in preventing large-for-gestational-age (LGA) infants at birth and potentially more convenient for patients, Dr. Rademaker said at the Pregnancy Meeting, sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Metformin and glibenclamide monotherapy as first-line treatment for gestational diabetes (GDM) are often used as patient-friendly alternatives to insulin. However, side effects are a concern, and data on the use of sequential and combined metformin and glibenclamide compared with insulin are lacking, she said.

In the study known as the SUGAR-DIP trial, Dr. Rademaker and colleagues recruited 821 women older than 18 years with singleton pregnancies between 16 weeks’ and 34 weeks’ gestation who had insufficient glycemic control with diet alone.

The study was conducted between 2016 and 2022; 409 women were randomized to OAAs and 412 to insulin. The mean age of the participants was 33 years, and 58% were White.

The OAA group received metformin initially, with the addition of up to 15 mg/day of glibenclamide in cases of insufficient glycemic control. Those who still experienced insufficient glycemic control were given insulin. The insulin group received injections according to usual standard of care.

The primary outcome was neonatal LGA, defined as birth weight above the 90th percentile. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction based on the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire.

The intent-to-treat population included 406 women in the OAA group and 398 in the insulin group.

Overall, LGA rates were 23.9% in the OAA group vs. 19.9% in the insulin group. The absolute risk difference was 4%, with P values of .09 for noninferiority and .17 for superiority, Dr. Rademaker said in her presentation.

Notably, the OAA treatment led to lower maternal weight gain, although side effects were similar between the groups, she said. Neonates in the OAA group were significantly more likely to need intravenous glucose therapy (6.4% vs. 3.2%, P = .04). However, gestational weight gain was significantly lower in the OAA group than the insulin group (mean of 9.3 kg vs. 10.4 kg, P = .03).

Rates of maternal hypoglycemia were higher in the OAA group (21% vs. 11%), and 20% of women in the OAA group needed insulin therapy.

Serious adverse events were similar between the groups, but more side effects overall were reported in the OAA group than in the insulin group (77.9% vs. 55.9%, P < .001). The most common patient-reported side effects in the OAA group were nausea and diarrhea (nearly 40% for each), while headache and fatigue were the most common side effects in the insulin group.

Participants in both groups reported high levels of treatment satisfaction, with median scores of 5 on a scale of 0-6, Dr. Rademaker said. However, the data supported the researchers’ hypothesis of greater satisfaction with oral therapy. Patients in the OAA group were more likely to recommend their treatment to others than were those in the insulin group, with ratings of 5 vs. 4 on a scale of 0-6, and significantly more women in the OAA group said they would be inclined to continue their current treatment (5 vs. 4, P < .001 for both).

Study limitations included the open-label design. However, the results support the use of oral treatments as a noninferior alternative to insulin for preventing LGA in women with gestational diabetes, Dr. Rademaker said.
 

Data Support Orals as Effective Gestational Diabetes Option

“Treatment of gestational diabetes is important for optimal pregnancy outcomes,” Catherine Spong, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

Although the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends insulin as the first-line therapy for gestational diabetes, many individuals opt for OAAs for the ease of an oral medication compared with injections, she said.

The current study authors evaluated whether OAAs were noninferior to insulin alone. “The size of oral [antihyperglycemic] agents suggests they can cross the placenta and may result in hypoglycemia in the fetus,” she said.

Although the overall LGA rate in the current study seems high, the rate of LGA is increased in diabetes generally, she added.

A key takeaway was that although individuals who used oral agents were more likely to recommend their treatment and to continue their therapy, 20% of these patients needed insulin therapy, Dr. Spong said.

Additional research is needed to explore the effect of gestational diabetes treatments on the fetus, Dr. Spong said in an interview. Research questions include whether hypoglycemia is more common in women who received oral agents, whether the agents crossed the placenta, and long-term effects, she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development. Dr. Rademaker had no financial conflicts to disclose. One of the study coauthors disclosed serving as a consultant for ObsEva and Merck, and travel support from Merck, as well as support from the National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Spong had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — A combination of oral antihyperglycemics was as effective as insulin for managing gestational diabetes, based on data from more than 800 individuals.

After diet control, both insulin and oral agents such as metformin and glibenclamide are used as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus, Doortje Rademaker, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands, said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting (abstract 28).

Oral antihyperglycemic agents (OAAs) are thought to be comparable to insulin in preventing large-for-gestational-age (LGA) infants at birth and potentially more convenient for patients, Dr. Rademaker said at the Pregnancy Meeting, sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Metformin and glibenclamide monotherapy as first-line treatment for gestational diabetes (GDM) are often used as patient-friendly alternatives to insulin. However, side effects are a concern, and data on the use of sequential and combined metformin and glibenclamide compared with insulin are lacking, she said.

In the study known as the SUGAR-DIP trial, Dr. Rademaker and colleagues recruited 821 women older than 18 years with singleton pregnancies between 16 weeks’ and 34 weeks’ gestation who had insufficient glycemic control with diet alone.

The study was conducted between 2016 and 2022; 409 women were randomized to OAAs and 412 to insulin. The mean age of the participants was 33 years, and 58% were White.

The OAA group received metformin initially, with the addition of up to 15 mg/day of glibenclamide in cases of insufficient glycemic control. Those who still experienced insufficient glycemic control were given insulin. The insulin group received injections according to usual standard of care.

The primary outcome was neonatal LGA, defined as birth weight above the 90th percentile. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction based on the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire.

The intent-to-treat population included 406 women in the OAA group and 398 in the insulin group.

Overall, LGA rates were 23.9% in the OAA group vs. 19.9% in the insulin group. The absolute risk difference was 4%, with P values of .09 for noninferiority and .17 for superiority, Dr. Rademaker said in her presentation.

Notably, the OAA treatment led to lower maternal weight gain, although side effects were similar between the groups, she said. Neonates in the OAA group were significantly more likely to need intravenous glucose therapy (6.4% vs. 3.2%, P = .04). However, gestational weight gain was significantly lower in the OAA group than the insulin group (mean of 9.3 kg vs. 10.4 kg, P = .03).

Rates of maternal hypoglycemia were higher in the OAA group (21% vs. 11%), and 20% of women in the OAA group needed insulin therapy.

Serious adverse events were similar between the groups, but more side effects overall were reported in the OAA group than in the insulin group (77.9% vs. 55.9%, P < .001). The most common patient-reported side effects in the OAA group were nausea and diarrhea (nearly 40% for each), while headache and fatigue were the most common side effects in the insulin group.

Participants in both groups reported high levels of treatment satisfaction, with median scores of 5 on a scale of 0-6, Dr. Rademaker said. However, the data supported the researchers’ hypothesis of greater satisfaction with oral therapy. Patients in the OAA group were more likely to recommend their treatment to others than were those in the insulin group, with ratings of 5 vs. 4 on a scale of 0-6, and significantly more women in the OAA group said they would be inclined to continue their current treatment (5 vs. 4, P < .001 for both).

Study limitations included the open-label design. However, the results support the use of oral treatments as a noninferior alternative to insulin for preventing LGA in women with gestational diabetes, Dr. Rademaker said.
 

Data Support Orals as Effective Gestational Diabetes Option

“Treatment of gestational diabetes is important for optimal pregnancy outcomes,” Catherine Spong, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

Although the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends insulin as the first-line therapy for gestational diabetes, many individuals opt for OAAs for the ease of an oral medication compared with injections, she said.

The current study authors evaluated whether OAAs were noninferior to insulin alone. “The size of oral [antihyperglycemic] agents suggests they can cross the placenta and may result in hypoglycemia in the fetus,” she said.

Although the overall LGA rate in the current study seems high, the rate of LGA is increased in diabetes generally, she added.

A key takeaway was that although individuals who used oral agents were more likely to recommend their treatment and to continue their therapy, 20% of these patients needed insulin therapy, Dr. Spong said.

Additional research is needed to explore the effect of gestational diabetes treatments on the fetus, Dr. Spong said in an interview. Research questions include whether hypoglycemia is more common in women who received oral agents, whether the agents crossed the placenta, and long-term effects, she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development. Dr. Rademaker had no financial conflicts to disclose. One of the study coauthors disclosed serving as a consultant for ObsEva and Merck, and travel support from Merck, as well as support from the National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Spong had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — A combination of oral antihyperglycemics was as effective as insulin for managing gestational diabetes, based on data from more than 800 individuals.

After diet control, both insulin and oral agents such as metformin and glibenclamide are used as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus, Doortje Rademaker, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, the Netherlands, said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting (abstract 28).

Oral antihyperglycemic agents (OAAs) are thought to be comparable to insulin in preventing large-for-gestational-age (LGA) infants at birth and potentially more convenient for patients, Dr. Rademaker said at the Pregnancy Meeting, sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Metformin and glibenclamide monotherapy as first-line treatment for gestational diabetes (GDM) are often used as patient-friendly alternatives to insulin. However, side effects are a concern, and data on the use of sequential and combined metformin and glibenclamide compared with insulin are lacking, she said.

In the study known as the SUGAR-DIP trial, Dr. Rademaker and colleagues recruited 821 women older than 18 years with singleton pregnancies between 16 weeks’ and 34 weeks’ gestation who had insufficient glycemic control with diet alone.

The study was conducted between 2016 and 2022; 409 women were randomized to OAAs and 412 to insulin. The mean age of the participants was 33 years, and 58% were White.

The OAA group received metformin initially, with the addition of up to 15 mg/day of glibenclamide in cases of insufficient glycemic control. Those who still experienced insufficient glycemic control were given insulin. The insulin group received injections according to usual standard of care.

The primary outcome was neonatal LGA, defined as birth weight above the 90th percentile. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction based on the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire.

The intent-to-treat population included 406 women in the OAA group and 398 in the insulin group.

Overall, LGA rates were 23.9% in the OAA group vs. 19.9% in the insulin group. The absolute risk difference was 4%, with P values of .09 for noninferiority and .17 for superiority, Dr. Rademaker said in her presentation.

Notably, the OAA treatment led to lower maternal weight gain, although side effects were similar between the groups, she said. Neonates in the OAA group were significantly more likely to need intravenous glucose therapy (6.4% vs. 3.2%, P = .04). However, gestational weight gain was significantly lower in the OAA group than the insulin group (mean of 9.3 kg vs. 10.4 kg, P = .03).

Rates of maternal hypoglycemia were higher in the OAA group (21% vs. 11%), and 20% of women in the OAA group needed insulin therapy.

Serious adverse events were similar between the groups, but more side effects overall were reported in the OAA group than in the insulin group (77.9% vs. 55.9%, P < .001). The most common patient-reported side effects in the OAA group were nausea and diarrhea (nearly 40% for each), while headache and fatigue were the most common side effects in the insulin group.

Participants in both groups reported high levels of treatment satisfaction, with median scores of 5 on a scale of 0-6, Dr. Rademaker said. However, the data supported the researchers’ hypothesis of greater satisfaction with oral therapy. Patients in the OAA group were more likely to recommend their treatment to others than were those in the insulin group, with ratings of 5 vs. 4 on a scale of 0-6, and significantly more women in the OAA group said they would be inclined to continue their current treatment (5 vs. 4, P < .001 for both).

Study limitations included the open-label design. However, the results support the use of oral treatments as a noninferior alternative to insulin for preventing LGA in women with gestational diabetes, Dr. Rademaker said.
 

Data Support Orals as Effective Gestational Diabetes Option

“Treatment of gestational diabetes is important for optimal pregnancy outcomes,” Catherine Spong, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

Although the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends insulin as the first-line therapy for gestational diabetes, many individuals opt for OAAs for the ease of an oral medication compared with injections, she said.

The current study authors evaluated whether OAAs were noninferior to insulin alone. “The size of oral [antihyperglycemic] agents suggests they can cross the placenta and may result in hypoglycemia in the fetus,” she said.

Although the overall LGA rate in the current study seems high, the rate of LGA is increased in diabetes generally, she added.

A key takeaway was that although individuals who used oral agents were more likely to recommend their treatment and to continue their therapy, 20% of these patients needed insulin therapy, Dr. Spong said.

Additional research is needed to explore the effect of gestational diabetes treatments on the fetus, Dr. Spong said in an interview. Research questions include whether hypoglycemia is more common in women who received oral agents, whether the agents crossed the placenta, and long-term effects, she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development. Dr. Rademaker had no financial conflicts to disclose. One of the study coauthors disclosed serving as a consultant for ObsEva and Merck, and travel support from Merck, as well as support from the National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Spong had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Women who experience an adverse pregnancy outcome during their first pregnancy are significantly more likely to experience either the same or any adverse pregnancy outcome in a subsequent pregnancy than are those with no adverse pregnancy outcome during a first pregnancy, based on data from more than 4000 individuals.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) occur in approximately 20%-30% of pregnancies and contribute to significant perinatal morbidity, William A. Grobman, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (abstract 17).

Risk factors for APOs include nulliparity and prior APOs, as well as age, body mass index, and blood pressure, he said. However, less is known about factors identified early in a first pregnancy that might predict an APO in a second pregnancy, he explained.

Dr. Grobman and colleagues used data from the nuMoM2b Heart Health Study, a cohort of more than 10,000 nulliparous women at eight sites in the United States.

The current study included a subset of individuals with two pregnancies of at least 20 weeks’ gestation who were followed for up to 7 years after delivery via telephone and in-person visits and for whom APO information was available.

An APO was defined as any of a range of outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, small-for-gestational age at birth (less than 5th percentile for weight), gestational diabetes, or fetal death.

The goal of the study was to determine patterns of APOs across two pregnancies, and to identify factors in the first pregnancy that might be associated with these patterns, Dr. Grobman said.

The study population included 4253 women from the nuMOM2b; of these, 1332 (31%) experienced an APO during their first pregnancies.

Women with an APO during the first pregnancy were significantly more likely to have a second APO than were those with no initial APO (40% vs. 15%), said Dr. Grobman. Overall, the APO that occurred most frequently in the first pregnancy was the one most likely to occur in the second.

However, “the increased risk for an APO during a second pregnancy was greater for any APO in women with a history of any APO compared to women with no prior APO,” he said.

In this study, the most common APOs were gestational diabetes and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

“In general, no risk markers were associated with a particular pattern of APO development,” Dr. Grobman said.

However, some markers from the first trimester of the first pregnancy were significantly associated with an APO in the second pregnancy, including body mass index, age older than 35 years, blood pressure, and cardiometabolic serum analytes. Also, the magnitude of APO recurrence risk was highest among non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with other ethnicities.

The findings were limited by a lack of data on placental pathology, Dr. Grobman noted during the discussion. However, the findings underscored the need to better understand the risk factors for APOs and develop prevention strategies, he said. The results also emphasize the need to account for transitions of care for patients who experience an APO, he added.
 

Data May Inform Patient Guidance

“Patients with an adverse pregnancy outcome in a first pregnancy often experience considerable anxiety when thinking about a second pregnancy,” Joseph R. Biggio Jr., MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans, said in an interview.

“This study helps to provide insight into factors which may be associated with increased risk in a subsequent pregnancy, and importantly identifies some factors that are potentially modifiable, such as BMI and blood pressure,” said Dr. Biggio, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

“Based on the findings from this analysis, we need research to determine whether these findings apply to not only patients having their first pregnancy, but also adverse outcomes in any pregnancy,” Dr. Biggio said in an interview. “In addition, we need to explore whether modification of any of these risk factors can improve pregnancy outcomes, so that all patients can have the birth experience that they desire,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Grobman and Dr. Biggio had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Women who experience an adverse pregnancy outcome during their first pregnancy are significantly more likely to experience either the same or any adverse pregnancy outcome in a subsequent pregnancy than are those with no adverse pregnancy outcome during a first pregnancy, based on data from more than 4000 individuals.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) occur in approximately 20%-30% of pregnancies and contribute to significant perinatal morbidity, William A. Grobman, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (abstract 17).

Risk factors for APOs include nulliparity and prior APOs, as well as age, body mass index, and blood pressure, he said. However, less is known about factors identified early in a first pregnancy that might predict an APO in a second pregnancy, he explained.

Dr. Grobman and colleagues used data from the nuMoM2b Heart Health Study, a cohort of more than 10,000 nulliparous women at eight sites in the United States.

The current study included a subset of individuals with two pregnancies of at least 20 weeks’ gestation who were followed for up to 7 years after delivery via telephone and in-person visits and for whom APO information was available.

An APO was defined as any of a range of outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, small-for-gestational age at birth (less than 5th percentile for weight), gestational diabetes, or fetal death.

The goal of the study was to determine patterns of APOs across two pregnancies, and to identify factors in the first pregnancy that might be associated with these patterns, Dr. Grobman said.

The study population included 4253 women from the nuMOM2b; of these, 1332 (31%) experienced an APO during their first pregnancies.

Women with an APO during the first pregnancy were significantly more likely to have a second APO than were those with no initial APO (40% vs. 15%), said Dr. Grobman. Overall, the APO that occurred most frequently in the first pregnancy was the one most likely to occur in the second.

However, “the increased risk for an APO during a second pregnancy was greater for any APO in women with a history of any APO compared to women with no prior APO,” he said.

In this study, the most common APOs were gestational diabetes and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

“In general, no risk markers were associated with a particular pattern of APO development,” Dr. Grobman said.

However, some markers from the first trimester of the first pregnancy were significantly associated with an APO in the second pregnancy, including body mass index, age older than 35 years, blood pressure, and cardiometabolic serum analytes. Also, the magnitude of APO recurrence risk was highest among non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with other ethnicities.

The findings were limited by a lack of data on placental pathology, Dr. Grobman noted during the discussion. However, the findings underscored the need to better understand the risk factors for APOs and develop prevention strategies, he said. The results also emphasize the need to account for transitions of care for patients who experience an APO, he added.
 

Data May Inform Patient Guidance

“Patients with an adverse pregnancy outcome in a first pregnancy often experience considerable anxiety when thinking about a second pregnancy,” Joseph R. Biggio Jr., MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans, said in an interview.

“This study helps to provide insight into factors which may be associated with increased risk in a subsequent pregnancy, and importantly identifies some factors that are potentially modifiable, such as BMI and blood pressure,” said Dr. Biggio, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

“Based on the findings from this analysis, we need research to determine whether these findings apply to not only patients having their first pregnancy, but also adverse outcomes in any pregnancy,” Dr. Biggio said in an interview. “In addition, we need to explore whether modification of any of these risk factors can improve pregnancy outcomes, so that all patients can have the birth experience that they desire,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Grobman and Dr. Biggio had no financial conflicts to disclose.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND — Women who experience an adverse pregnancy outcome during their first pregnancy are significantly more likely to experience either the same or any adverse pregnancy outcome in a subsequent pregnancy than are those with no adverse pregnancy outcome during a first pregnancy, based on data from more than 4000 individuals.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) occur in approximately 20%-30% of pregnancies and contribute to significant perinatal morbidity, William A. Grobman, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, said in a presentation at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (abstract 17).

Risk factors for APOs include nulliparity and prior APOs, as well as age, body mass index, and blood pressure, he said. However, less is known about factors identified early in a first pregnancy that might predict an APO in a second pregnancy, he explained.

Dr. Grobman and colleagues used data from the nuMoM2b Heart Health Study, a cohort of more than 10,000 nulliparous women at eight sites in the United States.

The current study included a subset of individuals with two pregnancies of at least 20 weeks’ gestation who were followed for up to 7 years after delivery via telephone and in-person visits and for whom APO information was available.

An APO was defined as any of a range of outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth at less than 37 weeks’ gestation, small-for-gestational age at birth (less than 5th percentile for weight), gestational diabetes, or fetal death.

The goal of the study was to determine patterns of APOs across two pregnancies, and to identify factors in the first pregnancy that might be associated with these patterns, Dr. Grobman said.

The study population included 4253 women from the nuMOM2b; of these, 1332 (31%) experienced an APO during their first pregnancies.

Women with an APO during the first pregnancy were significantly more likely to have a second APO than were those with no initial APO (40% vs. 15%), said Dr. Grobman. Overall, the APO that occurred most frequently in the first pregnancy was the one most likely to occur in the second.

However, “the increased risk for an APO during a second pregnancy was greater for any APO in women with a history of any APO compared to women with no prior APO,” he said.

In this study, the most common APOs were gestational diabetes and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

“In general, no risk markers were associated with a particular pattern of APO development,” Dr. Grobman said.

However, some markers from the first trimester of the first pregnancy were significantly associated with an APO in the second pregnancy, including body mass index, age older than 35 years, blood pressure, and cardiometabolic serum analytes. Also, the magnitude of APO recurrence risk was highest among non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with other ethnicities.

The findings were limited by a lack of data on placental pathology, Dr. Grobman noted during the discussion. However, the findings underscored the need to better understand the risk factors for APOs and develop prevention strategies, he said. The results also emphasize the need to account for transitions of care for patients who experience an APO, he added.
 

Data May Inform Patient Guidance

“Patients with an adverse pregnancy outcome in a first pregnancy often experience considerable anxiety when thinking about a second pregnancy,” Joseph R. Biggio Jr., MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Ochsner Health in New Orleans, said in an interview.

“This study helps to provide insight into factors which may be associated with increased risk in a subsequent pregnancy, and importantly identifies some factors that are potentially modifiable, such as BMI and blood pressure,” said Dr. Biggio, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

“Based on the findings from this analysis, we need research to determine whether these findings apply to not only patients having their first pregnancy, but also adverse outcomes in any pregnancy,” Dr. Biggio said in an interview. “In addition, we need to explore whether modification of any of these risk factors can improve pregnancy outcomes, so that all patients can have the birth experience that they desire,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Grobman and Dr. Biggio had no financial conflicts to disclose.

TOPLINE:

Allergens were present in more than half of evaluable over-the-counter (OTC) topical scar products, study finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• OTC topical scar treatments have the potential to cause an allergic reaction, but the prevalence of North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) core allergens in these products is unclear.
• Researchers used the word scar in a query of Amazon.com and four other retail websites to identify topical scar products for consumers and noted the list of ingredients.
• The investigators also surveyed the American Contact Dermatitis Society’s Contact Allergen Management Program (CAMP), a resource that helps patients with allergies find personal care products that are safe to use, for pertinent products.

TAKEAWAY: 

• The search query identified 156 products. Of these, 119 (76.2%) were gels, creams, or oils and 37 (23.7%) were sheets, strips, or tape.
• Of the 125 products that had a list of ingredients, 69 (55.2%) contained at least one NACDG allergen and 45 (36%) contained more than one.
• The top six most common allergens listed in the ingredients were fragrance (16.8%), phenoxyethanol (16.8%), parabens (14.4%), panthenol (12.8%), sodium benzoate (9.60%), and ethylhexylglycerin (8%).
• Analysis of CAMP revealed that the program only had five unique scar products in its list, suggesting that CAMP might not be a reliable source of scar product information for patients with known allergies to pertinent NACDG allergens.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients can consider trying a ‘use test’ on the inner forearm before applying to the surgical site,” the authors wrote. “It may reveal they are sensitive or sensitized by a product. 

SOURCE:

First author Meera Kattapuram, MD, of the Department of Internal Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, led the study, published in the February issue of Dermatologic Surgery.  

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the selection of five retailers and the top 100 products from each website and the potential for ingredient list inaccuracies. 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported having no financial conflicts of interest. The research was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Allergens were present in more than half of evaluable over-the-counter (OTC) topical scar products, study finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• OTC topical scar treatments have the potential to cause an allergic reaction, but the prevalence of North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) core allergens in these products is unclear.
• Researchers used the word scar in a query of Amazon.com and four other retail websites to identify topical scar products for consumers and noted the list of ingredients.
• The investigators also surveyed the American Contact Dermatitis Society’s Contact Allergen Management Program (CAMP), a resource that helps patients with allergies find personal care products that are safe to use, for pertinent products.

TAKEAWAY: 

• The search query identified 156 products. Of these, 119 (76.2%) were gels, creams, or oils and 37 (23.7%) were sheets, strips, or tape.
• Of the 125 products that had a list of ingredients, 69 (55.2%) contained at least one NACDG allergen and 45 (36%) contained more than one.
• The top six most common allergens listed in the ingredients were fragrance (16.8%), phenoxyethanol (16.8%), parabens (14.4%), panthenol (12.8%), sodium benzoate (9.60%), and ethylhexylglycerin (8%).
• Analysis of CAMP revealed that the program only had five unique scar products in its list, suggesting that CAMP might not be a reliable source of scar product information for patients with known allergies to pertinent NACDG allergens.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients can consider trying a ‘use test’ on the inner forearm before applying to the surgical site,” the authors wrote. “It may reveal they are sensitive or sensitized by a product. 

SOURCE:

First author Meera Kattapuram, MD, of the Department of Internal Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, led the study, published in the February issue of Dermatologic Surgery.  

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the selection of five retailers and the top 100 products from each website and the potential for ingredient list inaccuracies. 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported having no financial conflicts of interest. The research was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Allergens were present in more than half of evaluable over-the-counter (OTC) topical scar products, study finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• OTC topical scar treatments have the potential to cause an allergic reaction, but the prevalence of North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) core allergens in these products is unclear.
• Researchers used the word scar in a query of Amazon.com and four other retail websites to identify topical scar products for consumers and noted the list of ingredients.
• The investigators also surveyed the American Contact Dermatitis Society’s Contact Allergen Management Program (CAMP), a resource that helps patients with allergies find personal care products that are safe to use, for pertinent products.

TAKEAWAY: 

• The search query identified 156 products. Of these, 119 (76.2%) were gels, creams, or oils and 37 (23.7%) were sheets, strips, or tape.
• Of the 125 products that had a list of ingredients, 69 (55.2%) contained at least one NACDG allergen and 45 (36%) contained more than one.
• The top six most common allergens listed in the ingredients were fragrance (16.8%), phenoxyethanol (16.8%), parabens (14.4%), panthenol (12.8%), sodium benzoate (9.60%), and ethylhexylglycerin (8%).
• Analysis of CAMP revealed that the program only had five unique scar products in its list, suggesting that CAMP might not be a reliable source of scar product information for patients with known allergies to pertinent NACDG allergens.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients can consider trying a ‘use test’ on the inner forearm before applying to the surgical site,” the authors wrote. “It may reveal they are sensitive or sensitized by a product. 

SOURCE:

First author Meera Kattapuram, MD, of the Department of Internal Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, led the study, published in the February issue of Dermatologic Surgery.  

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the selection of five retailers and the top 100 products from each website and the potential for ingredient list inaccuracies. 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported having no financial conflicts of interest. The research was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Oral antibiotics may be a safe alternative to receiving prolonged intravenous (IV) antibiotics, according to a recent observational study published in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients receiving antibiotics through an IV line risk developing a secondary infection; antibiotics received orally are considered safer.
• Researchers analyzed observational data from 914 adults with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia who received care in four hospitals in Denmark between 2018 and 2021.
• The outcomes of patients who were switched to oral antibiotics within 4 days after a positive blood culture were compared with those who continued to receive IV antibiotics for at least 5 days after the blood culture; participants in both groups received antibiotics for 7-14 days.
• Researchers assessed mortality rates over a 90-day window and used a target trial emulation method to conduct the study.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 14.3% of patients who received prolonged IV treatment died, compared with 6.9% in the oral antibiotics group.
• In an intention-to-treat analysis, patients who were switched to oral antibiotics had a 22% lower risk for death within 90 days of initiation of treatment (relative risk [RR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60-1.10).
• In a per-protocol analysis, patients who switched to the oral route had a 1% lower odds of dying within 90 days (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.70-1.40).
• Individuals who were switched to oral antibiotic treatment were younger than those who continued to receive antibiotics via the IV route (median age, 73 vs 76 years, respectively), had fewer comorbidities (four vs five), and were more likely to have community-acquired gram-negative bacteremia (89.4% vs 80.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that the mortality associated with early antibiotic stepdown treatment is comparable to that associated with receiving prolonged IV antibiotic treatment for individuals with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sandra Tingsgård, MD, of the Center of Research & Department of Infectious Diseases at Copenhagen University Hospital–Amager and Hvidovre in Denmark.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was based on data from electronic health records, so some factors may not have been recorded or considered. The researchers identified few cases of multidrug-resistant infections, and the findings may not apply to those cases. Complicated cases and people who were not stabilized by day 4 were excluded from the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures or sources of funding.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Oral antibiotics may be a safe alternative to receiving prolonged intravenous (IV) antibiotics, according to a recent observational study published in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients receiving antibiotics through an IV line risk developing a secondary infection; antibiotics received orally are considered safer.
• Researchers analyzed observational data from 914 adults with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia who received care in four hospitals in Denmark between 2018 and 2021.
• The outcomes of patients who were switched to oral antibiotics within 4 days after a positive blood culture were compared with those who continued to receive IV antibiotics for at least 5 days after the blood culture; participants in both groups received antibiotics for 7-14 days.
• Researchers assessed mortality rates over a 90-day window and used a target trial emulation method to conduct the study.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 14.3% of patients who received prolonged IV treatment died, compared with 6.9% in the oral antibiotics group.
• In an intention-to-treat analysis, patients who were switched to oral antibiotics had a 22% lower risk for death within 90 days of initiation of treatment (relative risk [RR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60-1.10).
• In a per-protocol analysis, patients who switched to the oral route had a 1% lower odds of dying within 90 days (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.70-1.40).
• Individuals who were switched to oral antibiotic treatment were younger than those who continued to receive antibiotics via the IV route (median age, 73 vs 76 years, respectively), had fewer comorbidities (four vs five), and were more likely to have community-acquired gram-negative bacteremia (89.4% vs 80.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that the mortality associated with early antibiotic stepdown treatment is comparable to that associated with receiving prolonged IV antibiotic treatment for individuals with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sandra Tingsgård, MD, of the Center of Research & Department of Infectious Diseases at Copenhagen University Hospital–Amager and Hvidovre in Denmark.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was based on data from electronic health records, so some factors may not have been recorded or considered. The researchers identified few cases of multidrug-resistant infections, and the findings may not apply to those cases. Complicated cases and people who were not stabilized by day 4 were excluded from the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures or sources of funding.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Oral antibiotics may be a safe alternative to receiving prolonged intravenous (IV) antibiotics, according to a recent observational study published in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Patients receiving antibiotics through an IV line risk developing a secondary infection; antibiotics received orally are considered safer.
• Researchers analyzed observational data from 914 adults with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia who received care in four hospitals in Denmark between 2018 and 2021.
• The outcomes of patients who were switched to oral antibiotics within 4 days after a positive blood culture were compared with those who continued to receive IV antibiotics for at least 5 days after the blood culture; participants in both groups received antibiotics for 7-14 days.
• Researchers assessed mortality rates over a 90-day window and used a target trial emulation method to conduct the study.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 14.3% of patients who received prolonged IV treatment died, compared with 6.9% in the oral antibiotics group.
• In an intention-to-treat analysis, patients who were switched to oral antibiotics had a 22% lower risk for death within 90 days of initiation of treatment (relative risk [RR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60-1.10).
• In a per-protocol analysis, patients who switched to the oral route had a 1% lower odds of dying within 90 days (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.70-1.40).
• Individuals who were switched to oral antibiotic treatment were younger than those who continued to receive antibiotics via the IV route (median age, 73 vs 76 years, respectively), had fewer comorbidities (four vs five), and were more likely to have community-acquired gram-negative bacteremia (89.4% vs 80.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that the mortality associated with early antibiotic stepdown treatment is comparable to that associated with receiving prolonged IV antibiotic treatment for individuals with uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sandra Tingsgård, MD, of the Center of Research & Department of Infectious Diseases at Copenhagen University Hospital–Amager and Hvidovre in Denmark.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was based on data from electronic health records, so some factors may not have been recorded or considered. The researchers identified few cases of multidrug-resistant infections, and the findings may not apply to those cases. Complicated cases and people who were not stabilized by day 4 were excluded from the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures or sources of funding.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Faced with a positive human papillomavirus (HPV) test, patients are quickly overwhelmed by anxiety-inducing questions. It is crucial to provide them with adequate responses to reassure them, emphasized Jean-Louis Mergui, MD, president of the International Federation for Colposcopy, during the press conference of the Congress of the French Society of Colposcopy and Cervico-Vaginal Pathology.

“Do I have cancer? When did I catch this papillomavirus? Is it dangerous for my partner? How do I get rid of it?” “Not everyone is equipped to answer these four questions. However, it is extremely important that healthcare professionals provide correct answers to patients so that they stop worrying,” Dr. Mergui explained.
 

Papillomavirus and Cancer

One of the first instincts of patients who receive a positive HPV test is to turn to the Internet. There, they read about “high-risk HPV, which is potentially oncogenic,” and become completely panicked, said Dr. Mergui.

However, among women, the probability of having a high-grade CIN3 lesion or higher on the cervix when the HPV test is positive is about 7%, according to the ATHENA study. “About 93% of patients do not have a severe lesion on the cervix. That’s why colposcopy is not performed on all patients. They need to be reassured,” said Dr. Mergui. When the papillomavirus persists, there is a risk for a cervical lesion. After 11 years, between 20% and 30% of patients develop a high-grade lesion on the cervix. However, on average, a high-risk HPV is spontaneously eliminated within 1-2 years. “After 14 months, 50% of women will test negative for their papillomavirus,” Dr. Mergui noted.

“High-risk HPV does not mean there is a lesion; it means there is a risk of developing a lesion on the cervix one day. That’s why these patients need to be monitored and explored,” he added.

In practice, when a patient aged between 30 and 65 years has a positive HPV test, cytology is performed to look for lesions. Only in the case of an abnormal smear, ASC-US, is colposcopy recommended. In the absence of a lesion, a control HPV test is conducted 1 year later to monitor virus persistence.

It should be noted that patients who have been treated for a cervical lesion have a five times higher risk of developing invasive cervical, vaginal, or vulvar cancer. Therefore, treated patients must be monitored once every 3 years for life.
 

Time of Infection

Many patients ask, “When did I catch this papillomavirus?” In response, Dr. Mergui first emphasized that HPV infection is common. “Between ages 15 and 30 years, most of us are infected with a high-risk HPV. When we look at the incidence between ages 15 and 25 years, every year, 20% of all young girls are infected with HPV, including 17% with high-risk HPV. The virus is usually caught within the first 5 years of sexual activity, and typically disappears after about a year,” he explained.

However, the most disturbing scenario for patients is when their last examination was negative, and there is no apparent reason for having caught the virus since then. Suspicion often falls on the partner. Once again, the gynecologist seeks to reassure.

It is possible that the last time screening was conducted, the virus was not sought (HPV test), but rather cervical lesions were sought by smear. However, a normal smear does not mean that the papillomavirus is not present. A negative cytology does not mean a negative HPV test. As we have seen, the virus is not always associated with the presence of a lesion, explained Dr. Mergui.

Also, having had a negative HPV test a few years earlier does not mean that one was not already infected. The HPV test determines the quantity of virus. Therefore, it is possible that the virus was present in small quantities that were without clinical significance (hence, a negative test). However, a few years later, the virus may have multiplied, and the HPV test became positive.

“Sometimes, the virus re-emerges 40, 50 years after infection due to age-related immune decline,” said Dr. Mergui. “So, just because the smear was negative or the HPV test was negative at the last examination does not mean that one was infected between the two.” Moreover, only 15% of couples have the same virus present on the penis or vagina, he pointed out.
 

Protecting One’s Partner

Once the diagnosis is made, it is often too late to protect the partner because they have already been infected. “It is certain that the partner will be infected or has already been infected because when the patient comes to you with a positive HPV test, she has already had sexual intercourse. It is worth noting that the virus can be transmitted through digital touching, and condoms are not very effective in preventing virus transmission,” said Dr. Mergui.

The speaker further clarified that the risk for men is much lower than that for women. “In women, about 40,000 lesions linked to high-risk HPV types, precancerous or cancerous, are observed every year. In men, this number is 1900. So, this represents 20 times fewer neoplastic lesions in men. The problem in men is oropharyngeal lesions, which are three times more common than in women. However, there is no screening for oropharyngeal cancer.”

So, when should the partner consult? Dr. Mergui advised consulting when there are clinically visible lesions (small warts, bumps, or ear, nose, and throat symptoms). “I do not recommend systematic examination of male or female partners,” he added.
 

Clearing the Virus

There are treatments for cervical lesions but not for papillomavirus infection.

“The only thing that can be suggested is quitting smoking, which increases viral clearance, thus reducing viral load. Also, the use of condoms helps improve viral clearance, but when women have a stable relationship, it seems unrealistic to think they will constantly use condoms. Finally, the prophylactic vaccine has been proposed, but it does not treat the infection. In fact, the real solution is to tell patients that they need to continue regular monitoring,” said Dr. Mergui.

“It should be noted that an ongoing study at the European level seems to show that when women who have undergone surgical treatment for a high-grade cervical lesion are vaccinated at the time of treatment or just after treatment, it reduces the risk of recurrence by 50%. So, the risk of recurrence is around 7%-8%. This strategy could be interesting, but for now, there is no official recommendation,” Dr. Mergui concluded.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Faced with a positive human papillomavirus (HPV) test, patients are quickly overwhelmed by anxiety-inducing questions. It is crucial to provide them with adequate responses to reassure them, emphasized Jean-Louis Mergui, MD, president of the International Federation for Colposcopy, during the press conference of the Congress of the French Society of Colposcopy and Cervico-Vaginal Pathology.

“Do I have cancer? When did I catch this papillomavirus? Is it dangerous for my partner? How do I get rid of it?” “Not everyone is equipped to answer these four questions. However, it is extremely important that healthcare professionals provide correct answers to patients so that they stop worrying,” Dr. Mergui explained.
 

Papillomavirus and Cancer

One of the first instincts of patients who receive a positive HPV test is to turn to the Internet. There, they read about “high-risk HPV, which is potentially oncogenic,” and become completely panicked, said Dr. Mergui.

However, among women, the probability of having a high-grade CIN3 lesion or higher on the cervix when the HPV test is positive is about 7%, according to the ATHENA study. “About 93% of patients do not have a severe lesion on the cervix. That’s why colposcopy is not performed on all patients. They need to be reassured,” said Dr. Mergui. When the papillomavirus persists, there is a risk for a cervical lesion. After 11 years, between 20% and 30% of patients develop a high-grade lesion on the cervix. However, on average, a high-risk HPV is spontaneously eliminated within 1-2 years. “After 14 months, 50% of women will test negative for their papillomavirus,” Dr. Mergui noted.

“High-risk HPV does not mean there is a lesion; it means there is a risk of developing a lesion on the cervix one day. That’s why these patients need to be monitored and explored,” he added.

In practice, when a patient aged between 30 and 65 years has a positive HPV test, cytology is performed to look for lesions. Only in the case of an abnormal smear, ASC-US, is colposcopy recommended. In the absence of a lesion, a control HPV test is conducted 1 year later to monitor virus persistence.

It should be noted that patients who have been treated for a cervical lesion have a five times higher risk of developing invasive cervical, vaginal, or vulvar cancer. Therefore, treated patients must be monitored once every 3 years for life.
 

Time of Infection

Many patients ask, “When did I catch this papillomavirus?” In response, Dr. Mergui first emphasized that HPV infection is common. “Between ages 15 and 30 years, most of us are infected with a high-risk HPV. When we look at the incidence between ages 15 and 25 years, every year, 20% of all young girls are infected with HPV, including 17% with high-risk HPV. The virus is usually caught within the first 5 years of sexual activity, and typically disappears after about a year,” he explained.

However, the most disturbing scenario for patients is when their last examination was negative, and there is no apparent reason for having caught the virus since then. Suspicion often falls on the partner. Once again, the gynecologist seeks to reassure.

It is possible that the last time screening was conducted, the virus was not sought (HPV test), but rather cervical lesions were sought by smear. However, a normal smear does not mean that the papillomavirus is not present. A negative cytology does not mean a negative HPV test. As we have seen, the virus is not always associated with the presence of a lesion, explained Dr. Mergui.

Also, having had a negative HPV test a few years earlier does not mean that one was not already infected. The HPV test determines the quantity of virus. Therefore, it is possible that the virus was present in small quantities that were without clinical significance (hence, a negative test). However, a few years later, the virus may have multiplied, and the HPV test became positive.

“Sometimes, the virus re-emerges 40, 50 years after infection due to age-related immune decline,” said Dr. Mergui. “So, just because the smear was negative or the HPV test was negative at the last examination does not mean that one was infected between the two.” Moreover, only 15% of couples have the same virus present on the penis or vagina, he pointed out.
 

Protecting One’s Partner

Once the diagnosis is made, it is often too late to protect the partner because they have already been infected. “It is certain that the partner will be infected or has already been infected because when the patient comes to you with a positive HPV test, she has already had sexual intercourse. It is worth noting that the virus can be transmitted through digital touching, and condoms are not very effective in preventing virus transmission,” said Dr. Mergui.

The speaker further clarified that the risk for men is much lower than that for women. “In women, about 40,000 lesions linked to high-risk HPV types, precancerous or cancerous, are observed every year. In men, this number is 1900. So, this represents 20 times fewer neoplastic lesions in men. The problem in men is oropharyngeal lesions, which are three times more common than in women. However, there is no screening for oropharyngeal cancer.”

So, when should the partner consult? Dr. Mergui advised consulting when there are clinically visible lesions (small warts, bumps, or ear, nose, and throat symptoms). “I do not recommend systematic examination of male or female partners,” he added.
 

Clearing the Virus

There are treatments for cervical lesions but not for papillomavirus infection.

“The only thing that can be suggested is quitting smoking, which increases viral clearance, thus reducing viral load. Also, the use of condoms helps improve viral clearance, but when women have a stable relationship, it seems unrealistic to think they will constantly use condoms. Finally, the prophylactic vaccine has been proposed, but it does not treat the infection. In fact, the real solution is to tell patients that they need to continue regular monitoring,” said Dr. Mergui.

“It should be noted that an ongoing study at the European level seems to show that when women who have undergone surgical treatment for a high-grade cervical lesion are vaccinated at the time of treatment or just after treatment, it reduces the risk of recurrence by 50%. So, the risk of recurrence is around 7%-8%. This strategy could be interesting, but for now, there is no official recommendation,” Dr. Mergui concluded.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Faced with a positive human papillomavirus (HPV) test, patients are quickly overwhelmed by anxiety-inducing questions. It is crucial to provide them with adequate responses to reassure them, emphasized Jean-Louis Mergui, MD, president of the International Federation for Colposcopy, during the press conference of the Congress of the French Society of Colposcopy and Cervico-Vaginal Pathology.

“Do I have cancer? When did I catch this papillomavirus? Is it dangerous for my partner? How do I get rid of it?” “Not everyone is equipped to answer these four questions. However, it is extremely important that healthcare professionals provide correct answers to patients so that they stop worrying,” Dr. Mergui explained.
 

Papillomavirus and Cancer

One of the first instincts of patients who receive a positive HPV test is to turn to the Internet. There, they read about “high-risk HPV, which is potentially oncogenic,” and become completely panicked, said Dr. Mergui.

However, among women, the probability of having a high-grade CIN3 lesion or higher on the cervix when the HPV test is positive is about 7%, according to the ATHENA study. “About 93% of patients do not have a severe lesion on the cervix. That’s why colposcopy is not performed on all patients. They need to be reassured,” said Dr. Mergui. When the papillomavirus persists, there is a risk for a cervical lesion. After 11 years, between 20% and 30% of patients develop a high-grade lesion on the cervix. However, on average, a high-risk HPV is spontaneously eliminated within 1-2 years. “After 14 months, 50% of women will test negative for their papillomavirus,” Dr. Mergui noted.

“High-risk HPV does not mean there is a lesion; it means there is a risk of developing a lesion on the cervix one day. That’s why these patients need to be monitored and explored,” he added.

In practice, when a patient aged between 30 and 65 years has a positive HPV test, cytology is performed to look for lesions. Only in the case of an abnormal smear, ASC-US, is colposcopy recommended. In the absence of a lesion, a control HPV test is conducted 1 year later to monitor virus persistence.

It should be noted that patients who have been treated for a cervical lesion have a five times higher risk of developing invasive cervical, vaginal, or vulvar cancer. Therefore, treated patients must be monitored once every 3 years for life.
 

Time of Infection

Many patients ask, “When did I catch this papillomavirus?” In response, Dr. Mergui first emphasized that HPV infection is common. “Between ages 15 and 30 years, most of us are infected with a high-risk HPV. When we look at the incidence between ages 15 and 25 years, every year, 20% of all young girls are infected with HPV, including 17% with high-risk HPV. The virus is usually caught within the first 5 years of sexual activity, and typically disappears after about a year,” he explained.

However, the most disturbing scenario for patients is when their last examination was negative, and there is no apparent reason for having caught the virus since then. Suspicion often falls on the partner. Once again, the gynecologist seeks to reassure.

It is possible that the last time screening was conducted, the virus was not sought (HPV test), but rather cervical lesions were sought by smear. However, a normal smear does not mean that the papillomavirus is not present. A negative cytology does not mean a negative HPV test. As we have seen, the virus is not always associated with the presence of a lesion, explained Dr. Mergui.

Also, having had a negative HPV test a few years earlier does not mean that one was not already infected. The HPV test determines the quantity of virus. Therefore, it is possible that the virus was present in small quantities that were without clinical significance (hence, a negative test). However, a few years later, the virus may have multiplied, and the HPV test became positive.

“Sometimes, the virus re-emerges 40, 50 years after infection due to age-related immune decline,” said Dr. Mergui. “So, just because the smear was negative or the HPV test was negative at the last examination does not mean that one was infected between the two.” Moreover, only 15% of couples have the same virus present on the penis or vagina, he pointed out.
 

Protecting One’s Partner

Once the diagnosis is made, it is often too late to protect the partner because they have already been infected. “It is certain that the partner will be infected or has already been infected because when the patient comes to you with a positive HPV test, she has already had sexual intercourse. It is worth noting that the virus can be transmitted through digital touching, and condoms are not very effective in preventing virus transmission,” said Dr. Mergui.

The speaker further clarified that the risk for men is much lower than that for women. “In women, about 40,000 lesions linked to high-risk HPV types, precancerous or cancerous, are observed every year. In men, this number is 1900. So, this represents 20 times fewer neoplastic lesions in men. The problem in men is oropharyngeal lesions, which are three times more common than in women. However, there is no screening for oropharyngeal cancer.”

So, when should the partner consult? Dr. Mergui advised consulting when there are clinically visible lesions (small warts, bumps, or ear, nose, and throat symptoms). “I do not recommend systematic examination of male or female partners,” he added.
 

Clearing the Virus

There are treatments for cervical lesions but not for papillomavirus infection.

“The only thing that can be suggested is quitting smoking, which increases viral clearance, thus reducing viral load. Also, the use of condoms helps improve viral clearance, but when women have a stable relationship, it seems unrealistic to think they will constantly use condoms. Finally, the prophylactic vaccine has been proposed, but it does not treat the infection. In fact, the real solution is to tell patients that they need to continue regular monitoring,” said Dr. Mergui.

“It should be noted that an ongoing study at the European level seems to show that when women who have undergone surgical treatment for a high-grade cervical lesion are vaccinated at the time of treatment or just after treatment, it reduces the risk of recurrence by 50%. So, the risk of recurrence is around 7%-8%. This strategy could be interesting, but for now, there is no official recommendation,” Dr. Mergui concluded.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is widely used during pregnancy for individuals with type 1 diabetes — with pregnancy-specific target metrics now chosen and benefits on perinatal outcomes demonstrated — but more research is needed to elucidate its role in the growing population of pregnant people with type 2 diabetes and gestational diabetes (GDM). And overall, there are still “many more questions unanswered about CGM use in pregnancy than what we have answered,” Celeste Durnwald, MD, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.

There’s much to learn about how to best interpret “the detailed and complex data that CGM provides,” and what targets in addition to time in range (TIR) are most important, said Dr. Durnwald, director of the perinatal diabetes program and associate professor of ob.gyn. at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation on CGM.

Among other questions are whether fasting glucose is “as important in the era of CGM,” and whether there should be different glycemic targets for nocturnal versus daytime TIR, she said. Moreover, questions justifiably remain about whether the TIR targets for type 1 diabetes in pregnancy are indeed optimal, she said in a discussion period.

Ongoing research is looking at whether CGM can motivate and guide patients with GDM through diet and lifestyle changes such that “we can see changes in amounts of medication we use,” Dr. Durnwald noted in her presentation. “There’s a whole breadth of research looking at whether CGM can help predict diagnosis of GDM, large for gestational age, or preeclampsia, and what are the targets.”

Maternal hypoglycemia during pregnancy — a time when strict glycemic control is recommended to reduce the risk of congenital malformations and other fetal and neonatal morbidity — remains a concern in type 1 diabetes, even with widespread use of CGM in this population, said Barak Rosenn, MD, during a presentation on glycemic control in type 1 diabetes.

A pilot study of a newly designed pregnancy-specific closed-loop insulin delivery system, published last year (Diabetes Care. 2023;46:1425-31), has offered the first “really encouraging information about the ability to use our most up-to-date technology to help our type 1 patients maintain strict control and at the same time decrease their risk of severe hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Rosenn, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the Jersey City Medical Center, Jersey City, New Jersey.

Guidance for tight intrapartum glucose control, meanwhile, has been backed by little evidence, said Michal Fishel Bartal, MD, MS, and some recent studies and reviews have shown little to no effect of such tight control on neonatal hypoglycemia, which is the aim of the guidance.

“We need to reexamine current recommendations,” said Dr. Bartal, assistant professor in the division of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, during a presentation on intrapartum care. “There’s very limited evidence-based data for the way we manage people with diabetes [during labor and delivery].”

The Knowns And Unknowns of CGM in Pregnancy

The multicenter, international CONCEPTT trial (Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes), published in 2017, was the first trial to demonstrate improvements in perinatal outcomes, and it “brought CGM to the forefront in terms of widespread use,” Dr. Durnwald said.

The trial randomized more than 300 patients with type 1 diabetes who were pregnant or planning pregnancy (both users of insulin pumps and users of multiple insulin injections) to continuous, real-time CGM in addition to finger-stick glucose monitoring, or standard finger-stick glucose tests alone. In addition to small improvements in A1c and 7% more TIR (without an increase in hypoglycemia), pregnant CGM users had reductions in large-for-gestational age (LGA) births (53% vs 69%, P = .0489), neonatal intensive care admissions lasting more than 24 hours, and severe neonatal hypoglycemia.

Numbers needed to treat to prevent adverse outcomes in the CONCEPTT trial were six for LGA, six for NICU admission, and eight for neonatal hypoglycemia.

Data from the CONCEPTT trial featured prominently in the development of consensus recommendations for CGM targets in pregnancy by an international expert panel endorsed by the American Diabetes Association. In its 2019 report, the group recommended a target range of 63-140 mg/dL for type 1 and type 2 diabetes during pregnancy (compared with 70-180 mg/dL outside of pregnancy), and a TIR > 70% for pregnant people with type 1 diabetes. (Targets for time below range and time above range are also defined for type 1.)

More data are needed, the group said, in order to recommend TIR targets for type 2 diabetes in pregnancy or GDM (Diabetes Care. 2019;42:1593-603). “Many argue,” Dr. Durnwald said, “that there could be more stringent targets for those at less risk for [maternal] hypoglycemia, especially our GDM population.”

There’s a question of whether even higher TIR would further improve perinatal outcomes, she said, “or will we reach a threshold where higher TIR doesn’t get us a [further] reduction in LGA or preeclampsia.”

And while TIR is “certainly our buzzword,” lower mean glucose levels have also been associated with a lower risk of LGA and other adverse neonatal outcomes. A 2019 retrospective study from Sweden, for instance, analyzed patterns of CGM data from 186 pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and found significant associations between elevated mean glucose levels (in the second and third trimesters) and both LGA and an adverse neonatal composite outcome (Diabetologia. 2019;62:1143-53).

Elevated TIR was also associated with LGA, but “mean glucose had the strongest association with the rate of LGA,” Dr. Durnwald said.

Similarly, a 2020 subanalysis of the CONCEPTT trial data found that a higher mean glucose at both 24 and 34 weeks of gestation was significantly associated with a greater risk of LGA (Diabetes Care. 2020;43:1178-84), and a smaller 2015 analysis of data from two randomized controlled trials of CGM in pregnant women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes found this association in trimesters 2 and 3 (Diabetes Care. 2015;38;1319-25).

The ADA’s Standards of Care in Diabetes (Diabetes Care. 2024;47:S282-S294) endorse CGM as an adjunctive tool in pregnancy — not as a replacement for all traditional blood glucose monitoring — and advise that the use of CGM-reported mean glucose is superior to the use of estimated A1c, glucose management indicator, and other calculations to estimate A1c. Changes occur in pregnancy, Dr. Durnwald pointed out. “Most experts will identify a [target] mean glucose < 120 mg/dL in those with type 1, but there’s potential to have a mean glucose closer to 100 in certainly our patients with GDM and some of our patients with type 2,” she said. To a lesser extent, researchers have also looked at the effect of CMG-reported glycemic variability on outcomes such as LGA, with at least two studies finding some association, and there has been some research on nocturnal glucose and LGA, Dr. Durnwald said. CGM “gives us the opportunity,” she said, “to think about nocturnal glucose as a possible target” for further optimizing diabetes management during pregnancy.

CGM in Type 2, GDM

CGM in type 2 diabetes in pregnancy was addressed in a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis, which found only three qualifying randomized controlled trials and concluded that CGM use was not associated with improvements in perinatal outcomes, as assessed by LGA and preeclampsia (Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2023;5:100969). “It’s very limited by the small sample size and the fact that most [patients] were using intermittent CGM,” Dr. Durnwald said. “It highlights how important it is to perform larger studies with continuous CGM.”

While the 2024 ADA standards say there are insufficient data to support the use of CGM in all patients with type 2 diabetes or GDM — and that the decision should be individualized “based on treatment regimen, circumstance, preferences, and needs” — real-world access to CGM for type 2, and even a bit for GDM, is improving, she said.

Some insurers require patients to be on insulin, but the trends are such that “we certainly talk about CGM to all our patients with type 2 diabetes and even our patients with GDM,” Dr. Durnwald said in a later interview. “CGMs are being advertised so we definitely have people who ask about them upon diagnosis, and we try to make it work for them.”
 

Is Preventing Maternal Hypoglycemia Possible?

Advancements in technology and pharmacology aimed at optimizing glycemic control — increased adoption of CGM, the use of insulin pump therapy, and the use of more rapid insulin analogs — appear to have had little to no impact on rates of severe maternal hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes in pregnancy, said Dr. Rosenn, referring to several published studies.

The CONCEPTT study in type 1 diabetes, for instance, “gave us the best data we have on the use of CGM,” but differences in the percentage of patients with severe hypoglycemia and the total number of severe hypoglycemia episodes were basically the same whether patients used CGM or not, he said.

Closed-loop insulin delivery systems have been found in nonpregnant patients with type 1 diabetes to “be helpful in keeping people in range and also possibly [decreasing nocturnal hypoglycemia],” but the systems are not approved for use in pregnancy. “There’s not enough data on use in pregnancy, but probably more important, the algorithms used in the closed-loop systems are not directed to the targets we consider ideal for pregnancy,” Dr. Rosenn said.

In a pilot study of a closed-loop delivery system customized for pregnancies complicated by type 1 diabetes, 10 pregnant women were recruited at 14-32 weeks and, after a 1- to 2-week run-in period using a regular CGM-augmented pump, they used the closed-loop system targeting a daytime glucose of 80-110 mg/dL and nocturnal glucose of 80-100 mg/dL.

Mean TIR (a target range of 63-140 mg/dL) increased from 65% during the run-in period to 79% on the closed-loop system, and there were significant decreases in both time above range and time in the hypoglycemic ranges of < 63 mg/dL and < 54 mg/dL. Hypoglycemic events per week (defined as < 54 mg/dL for over 15 minutes) decreased from 4 to 0.7 (Diabetes Care. 2023;46:1425-31).

The investigators are continuing their research, and there are currently two randomized controlled trials underway examining use of closed-loop systems designed for pregnancy, said Dr. Rosenn, who was involved in feasibility research leading up to the pilot study. “So I’m hopeful we’ll see some encouraging information in the future.”

Maternal hypoglycemia during pregnancy is more common in type 1 diabetes, but it also affects pregnancies complicated by type 2 diabetes and GDM. In addition to the strict glycemic control imposed to improve maternal and fetal outcomes, pregnancy itself plays a role.

Research several decades ago from the Diabetes in Pregnancy Program Project, a prospective cohort in Cincinnati which Dr. Rosenn co-led, documented impaired counterregulatory physiology in pregnancy. Even in nondiabetic patients, there are declines in secretion of glucagon and growth hormone in response to hypoglycemia, for instance. In patients with type 1 diabetes, the diminishment in counterregulatory response is more severe.

Rethinking Intrapartum Care

Guidance for tight blood glucose control during labor and delivery for insulin-treated individuals — as reflected in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin No. 201 on Pregestational Diabetes and in recommendations from the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) — is based on small case series and overall “poor-quality” evidence that more recent research has failed to back up, Dr. Bartal said.

A systematic review published in 2018, for example, concluded there is a paucity of high-quality data supporting the association of glucose during labor and delivery with neonatal hypoglycemia in pregnancies complicated by diabetes (Diabet Med. 2018;35:173-83). And in a subsequent retrospective cohort study of pregnant women with type 1/type 2/GDM and their neonates, the same investigators reported no difference in the target glucose in labor between those with and without neonatal hypotension, after adjustment for important neonatal factors such as LGA and preterm delivery (Diabet Med. 2020;37:138-46).

Also exemplifying the body of research, Dr. Bartal said, is another single-center retrospective study published in 2020 that evaluated outcomes in the years before and after the institution of a formal intrapartum insulin regimen (a standardized protocol for titration of insulin and glucose infusions) for women with pregestational or gestational diabetes. The protocol was associated with improved maternal glucose control, but an increased frequency of neonatal hypoglycemia (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136:411-6).

Her own group at the University of Texas in Houston looked retrospectively at 233 insulin-treated pregnancies complicated by type 2 diabetes and found no significant difference in the rate of neonatal hypoglycemia between those placed on a drip and those who were not, Dr. Bartal said. Over 40% of the newborns had hypoglycemia; it occurred irrespective of the route of delivery as well (J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022;35:7445-51).

Only two published randomized controlled trials have evaluated blood sugar control in labor, she said. The first, published in 2006, compared a continuous insulin drip with a rotation of glucose and non–glucose-containing fluids in insulin-requiring diabetes and found no differences in maternal blood glucose (the primary outcome) and a similar risk of neonatal hypoglycemia (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195;1095-9).

The second RCT, published in 2019, evaluated tight versus liberalized control (60-100 mg/dL, checking every hour, versus 60-120 mg/dL, checking every 4 hours) in laboring women with GDM. The first neonatal blood glucose level was similar in both groups, while the mean neonatal blood glucose level in the first 24 hours of life was lower with tight control (54 vs 58 mg/dL, P = .49) (Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:1171-7). Findings from a new RCT conducted at the University of Texas in Houston of usual care versus more permissive glucose control will be presented at the SMFM Pregnancy Meeting in February 2024, she said.

Neonatal hypoglycemia is associated with increased risk of NICU admission, “but it’s also associated with possible long-term developmental deficit,” Dr. Bartal said, with the risk highest in children exposed to severe, recurrent, or clinically undetected hypoglycemia. Research has documented significantly increased risks of low executive function and visual motor function, for instance, in children who experienced neonatal hypoglycemia.

The risk of neonatal hypoglycemia has been linked to a variety of factors outside of the intrapartum period such as diabetes control and weight gain during pregnancy, neonatal birth weight/LGA, neonatal adiposity, gestational age at delivery, maternal body mass index, smoking, and diabetes control prior to pregnancy, Dr. Bartal noted. Also challenging is the reality that neonatal hypoglycemia as a research outcome is not standardized; definitions have varied across studies.

Tight intrapartum control comes with “costs,” from close monitoring of labor to increased resource utilization, and it may affect the labor experience/satisfaction, Dr. Bartal said. “But furthermore,” she said, “there are studies coming out, especially in the anesthesiology journals, that show there may be possible harm,” such as the risk of maternal and neonatal hyponatremia, and maternal hypoglycemia. A 2016 editorial in Anaesthesia (2016;71:750) describes these concerns, she noted.

“I do think we need to rethink our current recommendations,” she said.

Dr. Durnwald reported serving on the Dexcom GDM advisory board and receiving funding from United Health Group and the Helmsley Charitable Trust. Dr. Bartal and Dr. Rosenn reported no conflicts of interest.

WASHINGTON — Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is widely used during pregnancy for individuals with type 1 diabetes — with pregnancy-specific target metrics now chosen and benefits on perinatal outcomes demonstrated — but more research is needed to elucidate its role in the growing population of pregnant people with type 2 diabetes and gestational diabetes (GDM). And overall, there are still “many more questions unanswered about CGM use in pregnancy than what we have answered,” Celeste Durnwald, MD, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.

There’s much to learn about how to best interpret “the detailed and complex data that CGM provides,” and what targets in addition to time in range (TIR) are most important, said Dr. Durnwald, director of the perinatal diabetes program and associate professor of ob.gyn. at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation on CGM.

Among other questions are whether fasting glucose is “as important in the era of CGM,” and whether there should be different glycemic targets for nocturnal versus daytime TIR, she said. Moreover, questions justifiably remain about whether the TIR targets for type 1 diabetes in pregnancy are indeed optimal, she said in a discussion period.

Ongoing research is looking at whether CGM can motivate and guide patients with GDM through diet and lifestyle changes such that “we can see changes in amounts of medication we use,” Dr. Durnwald noted in her presentation. “There’s a whole breadth of research looking at whether CGM can help predict diagnosis of GDM, large for gestational age, or preeclampsia, and what are the targets.”

Maternal hypoglycemia during pregnancy — a time when strict glycemic control is recommended to reduce the risk of congenital malformations and other fetal and neonatal morbidity — remains a concern in type 1 diabetes, even with widespread use of CGM in this population, said Barak Rosenn, MD, during a presentation on glycemic control in type 1 diabetes.

A pilot study of a newly designed pregnancy-specific closed-loop insulin delivery system, published last year (Diabetes Care. 2023;46:1425-31), has offered the first “really encouraging information about the ability to use our most up-to-date technology to help our type 1 patients maintain strict control and at the same time decrease their risk of severe hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Rosenn, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the Jersey City Medical Center, Jersey City, New Jersey.

Guidance for tight intrapartum glucose control, meanwhile, has been backed by little evidence, said Michal Fishel Bartal, MD, MS, and some recent studies and reviews have shown little to no effect of such tight control on neonatal hypoglycemia, which is the aim of the guidance.

“We need to reexamine current recommendations,” said Dr. Bartal, assistant professor in the division of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, during a presentation on intrapartum care. “There’s very limited evidence-based data for the way we manage people with diabetes [during labor and delivery].”

The Knowns And Unknowns of CGM in Pregnancy

The multicenter, international CONCEPTT trial (Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes), published in 2017, was the first trial to demonstrate improvements in perinatal outcomes, and it “brought CGM to the forefront in terms of widespread use,” Dr. Durnwald said.

The trial randomized more than 300 patients with type 1 diabetes who were pregnant or planning pregnancy (both users of insulin pumps and users of multiple insulin injections) to continuous, real-time CGM in addition to finger-stick glucose monitoring, or standard finger-stick glucose tests alone. In addition to small improvements in A1c and 7% more TIR (without an increase in hypoglycemia), pregnant CGM users had reductions in large-for-gestational age (LGA) births (53% vs 69%, P = .0489), neonatal intensive care admissions lasting more than 24 hours, and severe neonatal hypoglycemia.

Numbers needed to treat to prevent adverse outcomes in the CONCEPTT trial were six for LGA, six for NICU admission, and eight for neonatal hypoglycemia.

Data from the CONCEPTT trial featured prominently in the development of consensus recommendations for CGM targets in pregnancy by an international expert panel endorsed by the American Diabetes Association. In its 2019 report, the group recommended a target range of 63-140 mg/dL for type 1 and type 2 diabetes during pregnancy (compared with 70-180 mg/dL outside of pregnancy), and a TIR > 70% for pregnant people with type 1 diabetes. (Targets for time below range and time above range are also defined for type 1.)

More data are needed, the group said, in order to recommend TIR targets for type 2 diabetes in pregnancy or GDM (Diabetes Care. 2019;42:1593-603). “Many argue,” Dr. Durnwald said, “that there could be more stringent targets for those at less risk for [maternal] hypoglycemia, especially our GDM population.”

There’s a question of whether even higher TIR would further improve perinatal outcomes, she said, “or will we reach a threshold where higher TIR doesn’t get us a [further] reduction in LGA or preeclampsia.”

And while TIR is “certainly our buzzword,” lower mean glucose levels have also been associated with a lower risk of LGA and other adverse neonatal outcomes. A 2019 retrospective study from Sweden, for instance, analyzed patterns of CGM data from 186 pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and found significant associations between elevated mean glucose levels (in the second and third trimesters) and both LGA and an adverse neonatal composite outcome (Diabetologia. 2019;62:1143-53).

Elevated TIR was also associated with LGA, but “mean glucose had the strongest association with the rate of LGA,” Dr. Durnwald said.

Similarly, a 2020 subanalysis of the CONCEPTT trial data found that a higher mean glucose at both 24 and 34 weeks of gestation was significantly associated with a greater risk of LGA (Diabetes Care. 2020;43:1178-84), and a smaller 2015 analysis of data from two randomized controlled trials of CGM in pregnant women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes found this association in trimesters 2 and 3 (Diabetes Care. 2015;38;1319-25).

The ADA’s Standards of Care in Diabetes (Diabetes Care. 2024;47:S282-S294) endorse CGM as an adjunctive tool in pregnancy — not as a replacement for all traditional blood glucose monitoring — and advise that the use of CGM-reported mean glucose is superior to the use of estimated A1c, glucose management indicator, and other calculations to estimate A1c. Changes occur in pregnancy, Dr. Durnwald pointed out. “Most experts will identify a [target] mean glucose < 120 mg/dL in those with type 1, but there’s potential to have a mean glucose closer to 100 in certainly our patients with GDM and some of our patients with type 2,” she said. To a lesser extent, researchers have also looked at the effect of CMG-reported glycemic variability on outcomes such as LGA, with at least two studies finding some association, and there has been some research on nocturnal glucose and LGA, Dr. Durnwald said. CGM “gives us the opportunity,” she said, “to think about nocturnal glucose as a possible target” for further optimizing diabetes management during pregnancy.

CGM in Type 2, GDM

CGM in type 2 diabetes in pregnancy was addressed in a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis, which found only three qualifying randomized controlled trials and concluded that CGM use was not associated with improvements in perinatal outcomes, as assessed by LGA and preeclampsia (Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2023;5:100969). “It’s very limited by the small sample size and the fact that most [patients] were using intermittent CGM,” Dr. Durnwald said. “It highlights how important it is to perform larger studies with continuous CGM.”

While the 2024 ADA standards say there are insufficient data to support the use of CGM in all patients with type 2 diabetes or GDM — and that the decision should be individualized “based on treatment regimen, circumstance, preferences, and needs” — real-world access to CGM for type 2, and even a bit for GDM, is improving, she said.

Some insurers require patients to be on insulin, but the trends are such that “we certainly talk about CGM to all our patients with type 2 diabetes and even our patients with GDM,” Dr. Durnwald said in a later interview. “CGMs are being advertised so we definitely have people who ask about them upon diagnosis, and we try to make it work for them.”
 

Is Preventing Maternal Hypoglycemia Possible?

Advancements in technology and pharmacology aimed at optimizing glycemic control — increased adoption of CGM, the use of insulin pump therapy, and the use of more rapid insulin analogs — appear to have had little to no impact on rates of severe maternal hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes in pregnancy, said Dr. Rosenn, referring to several published studies.

The CONCEPTT study in type 1 diabetes, for instance, “gave us the best data we have on the use of CGM,” but differences in the percentage of patients with severe hypoglycemia and the total number of severe hypoglycemia episodes were basically the same whether patients used CGM or not, he said.

Closed-loop insulin delivery systems have been found in nonpregnant patients with type 1 diabetes to “be helpful in keeping people in range and also possibly [decreasing nocturnal hypoglycemia],” but the systems are not approved for use in pregnancy. “There’s not enough data on use in pregnancy, but probably more important, the algorithms used in the closed-loop systems are not directed to the targets we consider ideal for pregnancy,” Dr. Rosenn said.

In a pilot study of a closed-loop delivery system customized for pregnancies complicated by type 1 diabetes, 10 pregnant women were recruited at 14-32 weeks and, after a 1- to 2-week run-in period using a regular CGM-augmented pump, they used the closed-loop system targeting a daytime glucose of 80-110 mg/dL and nocturnal glucose of 80-100 mg/dL.

Mean TIR (a target range of 63-140 mg/dL) increased from 65% during the run-in period to 79% on the closed-loop system, and there were significant decreases in both time above range and time in the hypoglycemic ranges of < 63 mg/dL and < 54 mg/dL. Hypoglycemic events per week (defined as < 54 mg/dL for over 15 minutes) decreased from 4 to 0.7 (Diabetes Care. 2023;46:1425-31).

The investigators are continuing their research, and there are currently two randomized controlled trials underway examining use of closed-loop systems designed for pregnancy, said Dr. Rosenn, who was involved in feasibility research leading up to the pilot study. “So I’m hopeful we’ll see some encouraging information in the future.”

Maternal hypoglycemia during pregnancy is more common in type 1 diabetes, but it also affects pregnancies complicated by type 2 diabetes and GDM. In addition to the strict glycemic control imposed to improve maternal and fetal outcomes, pregnancy itself plays a role.

Research several decades ago from the Diabetes in Pregnancy Program Project, a prospective cohort in Cincinnati which Dr. Rosenn co-led, documented impaired counterregulatory physiology in pregnancy. Even in nondiabetic patients, there are declines in secretion of glucagon and growth hormone in response to hypoglycemia, for instance. In patients with type 1 diabetes, the diminishment in counterregulatory response is more severe.

Rethinking Intrapartum Care

Guidance for tight blood glucose control during labor and delivery for insulin-treated individuals — as reflected in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin No. 201 on Pregestational Diabetes and in recommendations from the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) — is based on small case series and overall “poor-quality” evidence that more recent research has failed to back up, Dr. Bartal said.

A systematic review published in 2018, for example, concluded there is a paucity of high-quality data supporting the association of glucose during labor and delivery with neonatal hypoglycemia in pregnancies complicated by diabetes (Diabet Med. 2018;35:173-83). And in a subsequent retrospective cohort study of pregnant women with type 1/type 2/GDM and their neonates, the same investigators reported no difference in the target glucose in labor between those with and without neonatal hypotension, after adjustment for important neonatal factors such as LGA and preterm delivery (Diabet Med. 2020;37:138-46).

Also exemplifying the body of research, Dr. Bartal said, is another single-center retrospective study published in 2020 that evaluated outcomes in the years before and after the institution of a formal intrapartum insulin regimen (a standardized protocol for titration of insulin and glucose infusions) for women with pregestational or gestational diabetes. The protocol was associated with improved maternal glucose control, but an increased frequency of neonatal hypoglycemia (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136:411-6).

Her own group at the University of Texas in Houston looked retrospectively at 233 insulin-treated pregnancies complicated by type 2 diabetes and found no significant difference in the rate of neonatal hypoglycemia between those placed on a drip and those who were not, Dr. Bartal said. Over 40% of the newborns had hypoglycemia; it occurred irrespective of the route of delivery as well (J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022;35:7445-51).

Only two published randomized controlled trials have evaluated blood sugar control in labor, she said. The first, published in 2006, compared a continuous insulin drip with a rotation of glucose and non–glucose-containing fluids in insulin-requiring diabetes and found no differences in maternal blood glucose (the primary outcome) and a similar risk of neonatal hypoglycemia (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195;1095-9).

The second RCT, published in 2019, evaluated tight versus liberalized control (60-100 mg/dL, checking every hour, versus 60-120 mg/dL, checking every 4 hours) in laboring women with GDM. The first neonatal blood glucose level was similar in both groups, while the mean neonatal blood glucose level in the first 24 hours of life was lower with tight control (54 vs 58 mg/dL, P = .49) (Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:1171-7). Findings from a new RCT conducted at the University of Texas in Houston of usual care versus more permissive glucose control will be presented at the SMFM Pregnancy Meeting in February 2024, she said.

Neonatal hypoglycemia is associated with increased risk of NICU admission, “but it’s also associated with possible long-term developmental deficit,” Dr. Bartal said, with the risk highest in children exposed to severe, recurrent, or clinically undetected hypoglycemia. Research has documented significantly increased risks of low executive function and visual motor function, for instance, in children who experienced neonatal hypoglycemia.

The risk of neonatal hypoglycemia has been linked to a variety of factors outside of the intrapartum period such as diabetes control and weight gain during pregnancy, neonatal birth weight/LGA, neonatal adiposity, gestational age at delivery, maternal body mass index, smoking, and diabetes control prior to pregnancy, Dr. Bartal noted. Also challenging is the reality that neonatal hypoglycemia as a research outcome is not standardized; definitions have varied across studies.

Tight intrapartum control comes with “costs,” from close monitoring of labor to increased resource utilization, and it may affect the labor experience/satisfaction, Dr. Bartal said. “But furthermore,” she said, “there are studies coming out, especially in the anesthesiology journals, that show there may be possible harm,” such as the risk of maternal and neonatal hyponatremia, and maternal hypoglycemia. A 2016 editorial in Anaesthesia (2016;71:750) describes these concerns, she noted.

“I do think we need to rethink our current recommendations,” she said.

Dr. Durnwald reported serving on the Dexcom GDM advisory board and receiving funding from United Health Group and the Helmsley Charitable Trust. Dr. Bartal and Dr. Rosenn reported no conflicts of interest.

WASHINGTON — Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is widely used during pregnancy for individuals with type 1 diabetes — with pregnancy-specific target metrics now chosen and benefits on perinatal outcomes demonstrated — but more research is needed to elucidate its role in the growing population of pregnant people with type 2 diabetes and gestational diabetes (GDM). And overall, there are still “many more questions unanswered about CGM use in pregnancy than what we have answered,” Celeste Durnwald, MD, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.

There’s much to learn about how to best interpret “the detailed and complex data that CGM provides,” and what targets in addition to time in range (TIR) are most important, said Dr. Durnwald, director of the perinatal diabetes program and associate professor of ob.gyn. at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation on CGM.

Among other questions are whether fasting glucose is “as important in the era of CGM,” and whether there should be different glycemic targets for nocturnal versus daytime TIR, she said. Moreover, questions justifiably remain about whether the TIR targets for type 1 diabetes in pregnancy are indeed optimal, she said in a discussion period.

Ongoing research is looking at whether CGM can motivate and guide patients with GDM through diet and lifestyle changes such that “we can see changes in amounts of medication we use,” Dr. Durnwald noted in her presentation. “There’s a whole breadth of research looking at whether CGM can help predict diagnosis of GDM, large for gestational age, or preeclampsia, and what are the targets.”

Maternal hypoglycemia during pregnancy — a time when strict glycemic control is recommended to reduce the risk of congenital malformations and other fetal and neonatal morbidity — remains a concern in type 1 diabetes, even with widespread use of CGM in this population, said Barak Rosenn, MD, during a presentation on glycemic control in type 1 diabetes.

A pilot study of a newly designed pregnancy-specific closed-loop insulin delivery system, published last year (Diabetes Care. 2023;46:1425-31), has offered the first “really encouraging information about the ability to use our most up-to-date technology to help our type 1 patients maintain strict control and at the same time decrease their risk of severe hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Rosenn, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the Jersey City Medical Center, Jersey City, New Jersey.

Guidance for tight intrapartum glucose control, meanwhile, has been backed by little evidence, said Michal Fishel Bartal, MD, MS, and some recent studies and reviews have shown little to no effect of such tight control on neonatal hypoglycemia, which is the aim of the guidance.

“We need to reexamine current recommendations,” said Dr. Bartal, assistant professor in the division of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, during a presentation on intrapartum care. “There’s very limited evidence-based data for the way we manage people with diabetes [during labor and delivery].”

The Knowns And Unknowns of CGM in Pregnancy

The multicenter, international CONCEPTT trial (Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes), published in 2017, was the first trial to demonstrate improvements in perinatal outcomes, and it “brought CGM to the forefront in terms of widespread use,” Dr. Durnwald said.

The trial randomized more than 300 patients with type 1 diabetes who were pregnant or planning pregnancy (both users of insulin pumps and users of multiple insulin injections) to continuous, real-time CGM in addition to finger-stick glucose monitoring, or standard finger-stick glucose tests alone. In addition to small improvements in A1c and 7% more TIR (without an increase in hypoglycemia), pregnant CGM users had reductions in large-for-gestational age (LGA) births (53% vs 69%, P = .0489), neonatal intensive care admissions lasting more than 24 hours, and severe neonatal hypoglycemia.

Numbers needed to treat to prevent adverse outcomes in the CONCEPTT trial were six for LGA, six for NICU admission, and eight for neonatal hypoglycemia.

Data from the CONCEPTT trial featured prominently in the development of consensus recommendations for CGM targets in pregnancy by an international expert panel endorsed by the American Diabetes Association. In its 2019 report, the group recommended a target range of 63-140 mg/dL for type 1 and type 2 diabetes during pregnancy (compared with 70-180 mg/dL outside of pregnancy), and a TIR > 70% for pregnant people with type 1 diabetes. (Targets for time below range and time above range are also defined for type 1.)

More data are needed, the group said, in order to recommend TIR targets for type 2 diabetes in pregnancy or GDM (Diabetes Care. 2019;42:1593-603). “Many argue,” Dr. Durnwald said, “that there could be more stringent targets for those at less risk for [maternal] hypoglycemia, especially our GDM population.”

There’s a question of whether even higher TIR would further improve perinatal outcomes, she said, “or will we reach a threshold where higher TIR doesn’t get us a [further] reduction in LGA or preeclampsia.”

And while TIR is “certainly our buzzword,” lower mean glucose levels have also been associated with a lower risk of LGA and other adverse neonatal outcomes. A 2019 retrospective study from Sweden, for instance, analyzed patterns of CGM data from 186 pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and found significant associations between elevated mean glucose levels (in the second and third trimesters) and both LGA and an adverse neonatal composite outcome (Diabetologia. 2019;62:1143-53).

Elevated TIR was also associated with LGA, but “mean glucose had the strongest association with the rate of LGA,” Dr. Durnwald said.

Similarly, a 2020 subanalysis of the CONCEPTT trial data found that a higher mean glucose at both 24 and 34 weeks of gestation was significantly associated with a greater risk of LGA (Diabetes Care. 2020;43:1178-84), and a smaller 2015 analysis of data from two randomized controlled trials of CGM in pregnant women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes found this association in trimesters 2 and 3 (Diabetes Care. 2015;38;1319-25).

The ADA’s Standards of Care in Diabetes (Diabetes Care. 2024;47:S282-S294) endorse CGM as an adjunctive tool in pregnancy — not as a replacement for all traditional blood glucose monitoring — and advise that the use of CGM-reported mean glucose is superior to the use of estimated A1c, glucose management indicator, and other calculations to estimate A1c. Changes occur in pregnancy, Dr. Durnwald pointed out. “Most experts will identify a [target] mean glucose < 120 mg/dL in those with type 1, but there’s potential to have a mean glucose closer to 100 in certainly our patients with GDM and some of our patients with type 2,” she said. To a lesser extent, researchers have also looked at the effect of CMG-reported glycemic variability on outcomes such as LGA, with at least two studies finding some association, and there has been some research on nocturnal glucose and LGA, Dr. Durnwald said. CGM “gives us the opportunity,” she said, “to think about nocturnal glucose as a possible target” for further optimizing diabetes management during pregnancy.

CGM in Type 2, GDM

CGM in type 2 diabetes in pregnancy was addressed in a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis, which found only three qualifying randomized controlled trials and concluded that CGM use was not associated with improvements in perinatal outcomes, as assessed by LGA and preeclampsia (Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2023;5:100969). “It’s very limited by the small sample size and the fact that most [patients] were using intermittent CGM,” Dr. Durnwald said. “It highlights how important it is to perform larger studies with continuous CGM.”

While the 2024 ADA standards say there are insufficient data to support the use of CGM in all patients with type 2 diabetes or GDM — and that the decision should be individualized “based on treatment regimen, circumstance, preferences, and needs” — real-world access to CGM for type 2, and even a bit for GDM, is improving, she said.

Some insurers require patients to be on insulin, but the trends are such that “we certainly talk about CGM to all our patients with type 2 diabetes and even our patients with GDM,” Dr. Durnwald said in a later interview. “CGMs are being advertised so we definitely have people who ask about them upon diagnosis, and we try to make it work for them.”
 

Is Preventing Maternal Hypoglycemia Possible?

Advancements in technology and pharmacology aimed at optimizing glycemic control — increased adoption of CGM, the use of insulin pump therapy, and the use of more rapid insulin analogs — appear to have had little to no impact on rates of severe maternal hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes in pregnancy, said Dr. Rosenn, referring to several published studies.

The CONCEPTT study in type 1 diabetes, for instance, “gave us the best data we have on the use of CGM,” but differences in the percentage of patients with severe hypoglycemia and the total number of severe hypoglycemia episodes were basically the same whether patients used CGM or not, he said.

Closed-loop insulin delivery systems have been found in nonpregnant patients with type 1 diabetes to “be helpful in keeping people in range and also possibly [decreasing nocturnal hypoglycemia],” but the systems are not approved for use in pregnancy. “There’s not enough data on use in pregnancy, but probably more important, the algorithms used in the closed-loop systems are not directed to the targets we consider ideal for pregnancy,” Dr. Rosenn said.

In a pilot study of a closed-loop delivery system customized for pregnancies complicated by type 1 diabetes, 10 pregnant women were recruited at 14-32 weeks and, after a 1- to 2-week run-in period using a regular CGM-augmented pump, they used the closed-loop system targeting a daytime glucose of 80-110 mg/dL and nocturnal glucose of 80-100 mg/dL.

Mean TIR (a target range of 63-140 mg/dL) increased from 65% during the run-in period to 79% on the closed-loop system, and there were significant decreases in both time above range and time in the hypoglycemic ranges of < 63 mg/dL and < 54 mg/dL. Hypoglycemic events per week (defined as < 54 mg/dL for over 15 minutes) decreased from 4 to 0.7 (Diabetes Care. 2023;46:1425-31).

The investigators are continuing their research, and there are currently two randomized controlled trials underway examining use of closed-loop systems designed for pregnancy, said Dr. Rosenn, who was involved in feasibility research leading up to the pilot study. “So I’m hopeful we’ll see some encouraging information in the future.”

Maternal hypoglycemia during pregnancy is more common in type 1 diabetes, but it also affects pregnancies complicated by type 2 diabetes and GDM. In addition to the strict glycemic control imposed to improve maternal and fetal outcomes, pregnancy itself plays a role.

Research several decades ago from the Diabetes in Pregnancy Program Project, a prospective cohort in Cincinnati which Dr. Rosenn co-led, documented impaired counterregulatory physiology in pregnancy. Even in nondiabetic patients, there are declines in secretion of glucagon and growth hormone in response to hypoglycemia, for instance. In patients with type 1 diabetes, the diminishment in counterregulatory response is more severe.

Rethinking Intrapartum Care

Guidance for tight blood glucose control during labor and delivery for insulin-treated individuals — as reflected in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin No. 201 on Pregestational Diabetes and in recommendations from the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) — is based on small case series and overall “poor-quality” evidence that more recent research has failed to back up, Dr. Bartal said.

A systematic review published in 2018, for example, concluded there is a paucity of high-quality data supporting the association of glucose during labor and delivery with neonatal hypoglycemia in pregnancies complicated by diabetes (Diabet Med. 2018;35:173-83). And in a subsequent retrospective cohort study of pregnant women with type 1/type 2/GDM and their neonates, the same investigators reported no difference in the target glucose in labor between those with and without neonatal hypotension, after adjustment for important neonatal factors such as LGA and preterm delivery (Diabet Med. 2020;37:138-46).

Also exemplifying the body of research, Dr. Bartal said, is another single-center retrospective study published in 2020 that evaluated outcomes in the years before and after the institution of a formal intrapartum insulin regimen (a standardized protocol for titration of insulin and glucose infusions) for women with pregestational or gestational diabetes. The protocol was associated with improved maternal glucose control, but an increased frequency of neonatal hypoglycemia (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136:411-6).

Her own group at the University of Texas in Houston looked retrospectively at 233 insulin-treated pregnancies complicated by type 2 diabetes and found no significant difference in the rate of neonatal hypoglycemia between those placed on a drip and those who were not, Dr. Bartal said. Over 40% of the newborns had hypoglycemia; it occurred irrespective of the route of delivery as well (J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022;35:7445-51).

Only two published randomized controlled trials have evaluated blood sugar control in labor, she said. The first, published in 2006, compared a continuous insulin drip with a rotation of glucose and non–glucose-containing fluids in insulin-requiring diabetes and found no differences in maternal blood glucose (the primary outcome) and a similar risk of neonatal hypoglycemia (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195;1095-9).

The second RCT, published in 2019, evaluated tight versus liberalized control (60-100 mg/dL, checking every hour, versus 60-120 mg/dL, checking every 4 hours) in laboring women with GDM. The first neonatal blood glucose level was similar in both groups, while the mean neonatal blood glucose level in the first 24 hours of life was lower with tight control (54 vs 58 mg/dL, P = .49) (Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:1171-7). Findings from a new RCT conducted at the University of Texas in Houston of usual care versus more permissive glucose control will be presented at the SMFM Pregnancy Meeting in February 2024, she said.

Neonatal hypoglycemia is associated with increased risk of NICU admission, “but it’s also associated with possible long-term developmental deficit,” Dr. Bartal said, with the risk highest in children exposed to severe, recurrent, or clinically undetected hypoglycemia. Research has documented significantly increased risks of low executive function and visual motor function, for instance, in children who experienced neonatal hypoglycemia.

The risk of neonatal hypoglycemia has been linked to a variety of factors outside of the intrapartum period such as diabetes control and weight gain during pregnancy, neonatal birth weight/LGA, neonatal adiposity, gestational age at delivery, maternal body mass index, smoking, and diabetes control prior to pregnancy, Dr. Bartal noted. Also challenging is the reality that neonatal hypoglycemia as a research outcome is not standardized; definitions have varied across studies.

Tight intrapartum control comes with “costs,” from close monitoring of labor to increased resource utilization, and it may affect the labor experience/satisfaction, Dr. Bartal said. “But furthermore,” she said, “there are studies coming out, especially in the anesthesiology journals, that show there may be possible harm,” such as the risk of maternal and neonatal hyponatremia, and maternal hypoglycemia. A 2016 editorial in Anaesthesia (2016;71:750) describes these concerns, she noted.

“I do think we need to rethink our current recommendations,” she said.

Dr. Durnwald reported serving on the Dexcom GDM advisory board and receiving funding from United Health Group and the Helmsley Charitable Trust. Dr. Bartal and Dr. Rosenn reported no conflicts of interest.

Healthcare workers have been at an increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and mental distress such as anxiety and depression during the pandemic, according to new research.

In an analysis of administrative health records for about 3000 healthcare workers in Alberta, Canada, the workers were as much as twice as likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with the overall population. The risk for infection was higher among healthcare workers in the first two waves of the pandemic and again during the fifth wave.

“Previous publications, including ours, suggested that the main problem was in the early weeks and months of the pandemic, but this paper shows that it continued until the later stages,” senior author Nicola Cherry, MD, an occupational epidemiologist at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, told this news organization.

The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
 

Wave Upon Wave

In the current study, the investigators sought to compare the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and mental distress among healthcare workers and among community referents (CRs). They examined the following waves of the COVID-19 pandemic:

• Wave 1: From March to June 2020 (4 months).
• Wave 2: From July 2020 to February 2021 (8 months).
• Wave 3: From March to June 2021 (4 months).
• Wave 4: From July to October 2021 (4 months).
• Wave 5 (Omicron): From November 2021 to March 2022 (5 months).

Healthcare workers in Alberta were asked at recruitment for consent to match their individual records to the Alberta Administrative Health Database. As the pandemic progressed, participants were also asked for consent to be linked to COVID-19 immunization records maintained by the provinces, as well as for the results of all polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The investigators matched 2959 healthcare workers to 14,546 CRs according to their age, sex, geographic location in Alberta, and number of physician claims from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020.

Incident SARS-CoV-2 infection was examined using PCR testing and the first date of a physician consultation at which the code for SARS-CoV-2 infection had been recorded. Mental health disorders were identified from physician records. They included anxiety disorders, stress and adjustment reactions, and depressive disorders.

Most (79.5%) of the healthcare workers were registered nurses, followed by physicians (16.1%), healthcare aides (2.4%), and licensed practical nurses (2.0%). Most participants (87.5%) were female. The median age at recruitment was 44 years.

Healthcare workers were at a greater risk for COVID-19 overall, with the first SARS-CoV-2 infection defined from either PCR tests (odds ratio [OR], 1.96) or from physician records (OR, 1.33). They were also at an increased risk for anxiety (adjusted OR, 1.25; P < .001), stress/adjustment reaction (adjusted OR, 1.52; P < .001), and depressive condition (adjusted OR, 1.39; P < .001). Moreover, the excess risks for stress/adjustment reactions and depressive conditions increased with successive waves during the pandemic, peaking in the fourth wave and continuing in the fifth wave.

“Although the increase was less in the middle of the phases of the pandemic, it came back with a vengeance during the last phase, which was the Omicron phase,” said Dr. Cherry.

“Employers of healthcare workers can’t assume that everything is now under control, that they know what they’re doing, and that there is no risk. We are now having some increases in COVID. It’s going to go on. The pandemic is not over in that sense, and infection control continues to be major,” she added.

The finding that mental health worsened among healthcare workers was not surprising, Dr. Cherry said. Even before the pandemic, studies had shown that healthcare workers were at a greater risk for depression than the population overall.

“There is a lot of need for care in mental health support of healthcare workers, whether during a pandemic or not,” said Dr. Cherry.
 

Nurses Are Suffering

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Farinaz Havaei, PhD, RN, assistant professor of nursing at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, said, “This is a very important and timely study that draws on objective clinical and administrative data, as opposed to healthcare workers’ subjective reports.” Dr. Havaei did not participate in the research.

Overall, the findings are consistent with previous research that drew upon healthcare workers’ reports. They speak to the chronic and cumulative impact of COVID-19 and its associated stressors on the mental health and well-being of healthcare workers, said Dr. Havaei.

“The likelihood of stress/adjustment reaction and depression showed a relatively steady increase with increasing COVID-19 waves. This increase can likely be explained by healthcare workers’ depleting emotional reserves for coping with chronic workplace stressors such as concerns about exposure to COVID-19, inadequate staffing, and work overload,” she said. Witnessing the suffering and trauma of patients and their families likely added to this risk.

Dr. Havaei also pointed out that most of the study participants were nurses. The findings are consistent with prepandemic research that showed that the suboptimal conditions that nurses increasingly faced resulted in high levels of exhaustion and burnout.

“While I agree with the authors’ call for more mental health support for healthcare workers, I think prevention efforts that address the root cause of the problem should be prioritized,” she said.
 

From Heroes to Zeros

The same phenomena have been observed in the United States, said John Q. Young, MD, MPP, PhD, professor and chair of psychiatry at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. In various studies, Dr. Young and his colleagues have reported a strong association between exposure to the stressors of the pandemic and subsequent development of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among healthcare workers.

“The findings from Alberta are remarkably consistent. In the beginning of the pandemic, there was a lot of acknowledgment of the work healthcare workers were doing. The fire department clapping as you leave work at night, being called heroes, even though a lot of healthcare workers feel uncomfortable with the hero language because they don’t feel like heroes. Yes, they’re afraid, but they are going to do what they need to do and help,” he said.

But as the pandemic continued, public sentiment changed, Dr. Young said. “They’ve gone from heroes to zeros. Now we are seeing the accumulated, chronic effects over months and years, and these are significant. Our healthcare workforce is vulnerable now. The reserves are low. There are serious shortages in nursing, with more retirements and more people leaving the field,” he said.

As part of a campaign to help healthcare workers cope, psychiatrists at Northwell Health have started a program called Stress First Aid at their Center for Traumatic Stress Response Resilience, where they train nurses, physicians, and other healthcare staff to use basic tools to recognize and respond to stress and distress in themselves and in their colleagues, said Dr. Young.

“For those healthcare workers who find that they are struggling and need more support, there is resilience coaching, which is one-on-one support. For those who need more clinical attention, there is a clinical program where our healthcare workers can meet with a psychologist, psychiatrist, or a therapist, to work through depression, PTSD, and anxiety. We didn’t have this before the pandemic, but it is now a big focus for our workforce,” he said. “We are trying to build resilience. The trauma is real.”

The study was supported by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Canadian Immunology Task Force. Dr. Cherry and Dr. Havaei reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Young reported that he is senior vice president of behavioral health at Northwell.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare workers have been at an increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and mental distress such as anxiety and depression during the pandemic, according to new research.

In an analysis of administrative health records for about 3000 healthcare workers in Alberta, Canada, the workers were as much as twice as likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with the overall population. The risk for infection was higher among healthcare workers in the first two waves of the pandemic and again during the fifth wave.

“Previous publications, including ours, suggested that the main problem was in the early weeks and months of the pandemic, but this paper shows that it continued until the later stages,” senior author Nicola Cherry, MD, an occupational epidemiologist at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, told this news organization.

The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
 

Wave Upon Wave

In the current study, the investigators sought to compare the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and mental distress among healthcare workers and among community referents (CRs). They examined the following waves of the COVID-19 pandemic:

• Wave 1: From March to June 2020 (4 months).
• Wave 2: From July 2020 to February 2021 (8 months).
• Wave 3: From March to June 2021 (4 months).
• Wave 4: From July to October 2021 (4 months).
• Wave 5 (Omicron): From November 2021 to March 2022 (5 months).

Healthcare workers in Alberta were asked at recruitment for consent to match their individual records to the Alberta Administrative Health Database. As the pandemic progressed, participants were also asked for consent to be linked to COVID-19 immunization records maintained by the provinces, as well as for the results of all polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The investigators matched 2959 healthcare workers to 14,546 CRs according to their age, sex, geographic location in Alberta, and number of physician claims from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020.

Incident SARS-CoV-2 infection was examined using PCR testing and the first date of a physician consultation at which the code for SARS-CoV-2 infection had been recorded. Mental health disorders were identified from physician records. They included anxiety disorders, stress and adjustment reactions, and depressive disorders.

Most (79.5%) of the healthcare workers were registered nurses, followed by physicians (16.1%), healthcare aides (2.4%), and licensed practical nurses (2.0%). Most participants (87.5%) were female. The median age at recruitment was 44 years.

Healthcare workers were at a greater risk for COVID-19 overall, with the first SARS-CoV-2 infection defined from either PCR tests (odds ratio [OR], 1.96) or from physician records (OR, 1.33). They were also at an increased risk for anxiety (adjusted OR, 1.25; P < .001), stress/adjustment reaction (adjusted OR, 1.52; P < .001), and depressive condition (adjusted OR, 1.39; P < .001). Moreover, the excess risks for stress/adjustment reactions and depressive conditions increased with successive waves during the pandemic, peaking in the fourth wave and continuing in the fifth wave.

“Although the increase was less in the middle of the phases of the pandemic, it came back with a vengeance during the last phase, which was the Omicron phase,” said Dr. Cherry.

“Employers of healthcare workers can’t assume that everything is now under control, that they know what they’re doing, and that there is no risk. We are now having some increases in COVID. It’s going to go on. The pandemic is not over in that sense, and infection control continues to be major,” she added.

The finding that mental health worsened among healthcare workers was not surprising, Dr. Cherry said. Even before the pandemic, studies had shown that healthcare workers were at a greater risk for depression than the population overall.

“There is a lot of need for care in mental health support of healthcare workers, whether during a pandemic or not,” said Dr. Cherry.
 

Nurses Are Suffering

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Farinaz Havaei, PhD, RN, assistant professor of nursing at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, said, “This is a very important and timely study that draws on objective clinical and administrative data, as opposed to healthcare workers’ subjective reports.” Dr. Havaei did not participate in the research.

Overall, the findings are consistent with previous research that drew upon healthcare workers’ reports. They speak to the chronic and cumulative impact of COVID-19 and its associated stressors on the mental health and well-being of healthcare workers, said Dr. Havaei.

“The likelihood of stress/adjustment reaction and depression showed a relatively steady increase with increasing COVID-19 waves. This increase can likely be explained by healthcare workers’ depleting emotional reserves for coping with chronic workplace stressors such as concerns about exposure to COVID-19, inadequate staffing, and work overload,” she said. Witnessing the suffering and trauma of patients and their families likely added to this risk.

Dr. Havaei also pointed out that most of the study participants were nurses. The findings are consistent with prepandemic research that showed that the suboptimal conditions that nurses increasingly faced resulted in high levels of exhaustion and burnout.

“While I agree with the authors’ call for more mental health support for healthcare workers, I think prevention efforts that address the root cause of the problem should be prioritized,” she said.
 

From Heroes to Zeros

The same phenomena have been observed in the United States, said John Q. Young, MD, MPP, PhD, professor and chair of psychiatry at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. In various studies, Dr. Young and his colleagues have reported a strong association between exposure to the stressors of the pandemic and subsequent development of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among healthcare workers.

“The findings from Alberta are remarkably consistent. In the beginning of the pandemic, there was a lot of acknowledgment of the work healthcare workers were doing. The fire department clapping as you leave work at night, being called heroes, even though a lot of healthcare workers feel uncomfortable with the hero language because they don’t feel like heroes. Yes, they’re afraid, but they are going to do what they need to do and help,” he said.

But as the pandemic continued, public sentiment changed, Dr. Young said. “They’ve gone from heroes to zeros. Now we are seeing the accumulated, chronic effects over months and years, and these are significant. Our healthcare workforce is vulnerable now. The reserves are low. There are serious shortages in nursing, with more retirements and more people leaving the field,” he said.

As part of a campaign to help healthcare workers cope, psychiatrists at Northwell Health have started a program called Stress First Aid at their Center for Traumatic Stress Response Resilience, where they train nurses, physicians, and other healthcare staff to use basic tools to recognize and respond to stress and distress in themselves and in their colleagues, said Dr. Young.

“For those healthcare workers who find that they are struggling and need more support, there is resilience coaching, which is one-on-one support. For those who need more clinical attention, there is a clinical program where our healthcare workers can meet with a psychologist, psychiatrist, or a therapist, to work through depression, PTSD, and anxiety. We didn’t have this before the pandemic, but it is now a big focus for our workforce,” he said. “We are trying to build resilience. The trauma is real.”

The study was supported by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Canadian Immunology Task Force. Dr. Cherry and Dr. Havaei reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Young reported that he is senior vice president of behavioral health at Northwell.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare workers have been at an increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and mental distress such as anxiety and depression during the pandemic, according to new research.

In an analysis of administrative health records for about 3000 healthcare workers in Alberta, Canada, the workers were as much as twice as likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with the overall population. The risk for infection was higher among healthcare workers in the first two waves of the pandemic and again during the fifth wave.

“Previous publications, including ours, suggested that the main problem was in the early weeks and months of the pandemic, but this paper shows that it continued until the later stages,” senior author Nicola Cherry, MD, an occupational epidemiologist at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, told this news organization.

The findings were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health.
 

Wave Upon Wave

In the current study, the investigators sought to compare the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and mental distress among healthcare workers and among community referents (CRs). They examined the following waves of the COVID-19 pandemic:

• Wave 1: From March to June 2020 (4 months).
• Wave 2: From July 2020 to February 2021 (8 months).
• Wave 3: From March to June 2021 (4 months).
• Wave 4: From July to October 2021 (4 months).
• Wave 5 (Omicron): From November 2021 to March 2022 (5 months).

Healthcare workers in Alberta were asked at recruitment for consent to match their individual records to the Alberta Administrative Health Database. As the pandemic progressed, participants were also asked for consent to be linked to COVID-19 immunization records maintained by the provinces, as well as for the results of all polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The investigators matched 2959 healthcare workers to 14,546 CRs according to their age, sex, geographic location in Alberta, and number of physician claims from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020.

Incident SARS-CoV-2 infection was examined using PCR testing and the first date of a physician consultation at which the code for SARS-CoV-2 infection had been recorded. Mental health disorders were identified from physician records. They included anxiety disorders, stress and adjustment reactions, and depressive disorders.

Most (79.5%) of the healthcare workers were registered nurses, followed by physicians (16.1%), healthcare aides (2.4%), and licensed practical nurses (2.0%). Most participants (87.5%) were female. The median age at recruitment was 44 years.

Healthcare workers were at a greater risk for COVID-19 overall, with the first SARS-CoV-2 infection defined from either PCR tests (odds ratio [OR], 1.96) or from physician records (OR, 1.33). They were also at an increased risk for anxiety (adjusted OR, 1.25; P < .001), stress/adjustment reaction (adjusted OR, 1.52; P < .001), and depressive condition (adjusted OR, 1.39; P < .001). Moreover, the excess risks for stress/adjustment reactions and depressive conditions increased with successive waves during the pandemic, peaking in the fourth wave and continuing in the fifth wave.

“Although the increase was less in the middle of the phases of the pandemic, it came back with a vengeance during the last phase, which was the Omicron phase,” said Dr. Cherry.

“Employers of healthcare workers can’t assume that everything is now under control, that they know what they’re doing, and that there is no risk. We are now having some increases in COVID. It’s going to go on. The pandemic is not over in that sense, and infection control continues to be major,” she added.

The finding that mental health worsened among healthcare workers was not surprising, Dr. Cherry said. Even before the pandemic, studies had shown that healthcare workers were at a greater risk for depression than the population overall.

“There is a lot of need for care in mental health support of healthcare workers, whether during a pandemic or not,” said Dr. Cherry.
 

Nurses Are Suffering

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Farinaz Havaei, PhD, RN, assistant professor of nursing at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, said, “This is a very important and timely study that draws on objective clinical and administrative data, as opposed to healthcare workers’ subjective reports.” Dr. Havaei did not participate in the research.

Overall, the findings are consistent with previous research that drew upon healthcare workers’ reports. They speak to the chronic and cumulative impact of COVID-19 and its associated stressors on the mental health and well-being of healthcare workers, said Dr. Havaei.

“The likelihood of stress/adjustment reaction and depression showed a relatively steady increase with increasing COVID-19 waves. This increase can likely be explained by healthcare workers’ depleting emotional reserves for coping with chronic workplace stressors such as concerns about exposure to COVID-19, inadequate staffing, and work overload,” she said. Witnessing the suffering and trauma of patients and their families likely added to this risk.

Dr. Havaei also pointed out that most of the study participants were nurses. The findings are consistent with prepandemic research that showed that the suboptimal conditions that nurses increasingly faced resulted in high levels of exhaustion and burnout.

“While I agree with the authors’ call for more mental health support for healthcare workers, I think prevention efforts that address the root cause of the problem should be prioritized,” she said.
 

From Heroes to Zeros

The same phenomena have been observed in the United States, said John Q. Young, MD, MPP, PhD, professor and chair of psychiatry at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. In various studies, Dr. Young and his colleagues have reported a strong association between exposure to the stressors of the pandemic and subsequent development of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among healthcare workers.

“The findings from Alberta are remarkably consistent. In the beginning of the pandemic, there was a lot of acknowledgment of the work healthcare workers were doing. The fire department clapping as you leave work at night, being called heroes, even though a lot of healthcare workers feel uncomfortable with the hero language because they don’t feel like heroes. Yes, they’re afraid, but they are going to do what they need to do and help,” he said.

But as the pandemic continued, public sentiment changed, Dr. Young said. “They’ve gone from heroes to zeros. Now we are seeing the accumulated, chronic effects over months and years, and these are significant. Our healthcare workforce is vulnerable now. The reserves are low. There are serious shortages in nursing, with more retirements and more people leaving the field,” he said.

As part of a campaign to help healthcare workers cope, psychiatrists at Northwell Health have started a program called Stress First Aid at their Center for Traumatic Stress Response Resilience, where they train nurses, physicians, and other healthcare staff to use basic tools to recognize and respond to stress and distress in themselves and in their colleagues, said Dr. Young.

“For those healthcare workers who find that they are struggling and need more support, there is resilience coaching, which is one-on-one support. For those who need more clinical attention, there is a clinical program where our healthcare workers can meet with a psychologist, psychiatrist, or a therapist, to work through depression, PTSD, and anxiety. We didn’t have this before the pandemic, but it is now a big focus for our workforce,” he said. “We are trying to build resilience. The trauma is real.”

The study was supported by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Canadian Immunology Task Force. Dr. Cherry and Dr. Havaei reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Young reported that he is senior vice president of behavioral health at Northwell.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A journal and publisher have retracted three papers about abortion, including one that has been used in court cases to support the suspension of FDA approval for mifepristone, aka an “abortion pill.”

Sage, the publisher of Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology, announced the retractions yesterday and posted a retraction notice covering the three articles.

For one of those articles, initially flagged by a reader, “an independent reviewer with expertise in statistical analyses evaluated the concerns and opined that the article’s presentation of the data in Figures 2 and 3 leads to an inaccurate conclusion and that the composition of the cohort studied has problems that could affect the article’s conclusions,” according to the notice.

The notice also said Sage “confirmed that all but one of the article’s authors had an affiliation with one or more of Charlotte Lozier Institute, Elliot Institute, and American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, all pro-life advocacy organizations, despite having declared they had no conflicts of interest when they submitted the article for publication or in the article itself.” 

One of the peer reviewers, Sage learned, “was affiliated with Charlotte Lozier Institute at the time of the review,” leading the publisher and journal editor to determine “the peer review for initial publication was unreliable.” That referee also reviewed the other two now-retracted papers, according to Sage.

James Studnicki, the lead author of the three papers, told Retraction Watch the retractions were “a blatant attempt to discredit excellent research which is incongruent with a preferred abortion narrative.” He told The Daily Wire, a conservative news outlet that was first to report on the retractions, the move was “completely unjustified.” The Daily Wire notes that “The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in March on the legality of restricting the abortion pill based on [Judge Matthew] Kacsmaryk’s ruling, proceedings that will certainly be impacted by the retractions.”

Sage had subjected one of the papers to an expression of concern in August 2023, saying they were investigating “potential issues regarding the representation of data in the article and author conflicts of interest” after being alerted by a reader. As News From The States reported then, the notice came after Chris Adkins, a professor at South University who teaches pharmaceutical sciences, raised concerns with Sage. As News From The States noted in August:

Kacsmaryk leaned hard on a 2021 study that was designed, funded and produced by the research arm of one of the most powerful anti-abortion political groups in the U.S. The judge cited this paper — which looked at Medicaid patients’ visits to the emergency room within 30 days of having an abortion — to justify that a group of anti-abortion doctors and medical groups have legal standing to force the FDA to recall mifepristone.

In a point-by-point response to Sage’s critiques of the paper sent to the publisher in November and now shared with Retraction Watch, Studnicki and colleagues pointed out they had noted their affiliations in the original manuscript and the then-proposed retractions “misrepresent ICMJE disclosure standards,” referring to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ guidelines. They also call some of the post-publication peer reviewers’ critiques “factually incorrect” and “unfounded.” They conclude:

No single specific finding in any of the three papers has been explicitly challenged, let alone invalidated.

There is no evidence of a major error, miscalculation, fabrication, or falsification.

There is no breach of any of the COPE guidelines that could permit Sage to retract any of our published papers.

The retraction of any of these papers, let alone all three, is demonstrably unwarranted.

Adkins told Retraction Watch he is “pleased the journal approached my concerns with legitimate and serious consideration.” He continued:

It is reassuring that my initial concerns with the 2021 Studnicki et al. article were verified and affirmed by other experts. Despite the length of time spanning my initial communications with the journal and today’s retractions, I understand that thorough investigations and re-review processes take time. Given that these now-retracted articles have been excessively cited by parties involved in ongoing federal judicial cases, now positioned before the SCOTUS, Sage’s retractions should help our courts remain informed by the highest standards and quality in scientific and medical evidence.

Update, 2/6/24, 2100 UTC: We note that — contrary to best industry practices described by the Committee on Publication Ethics — Sage has removed the original versions of the articles. They are available at these links:

“A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Emergency Room Utilization Following Mifepristone Chemical and Surgical Abortions, 1999–2015”

“Doctors Who Perform Abortions: Their Characteristics and Patterns of Holding and Using Hospital Privileges”

“A Post Hoc Exploratory Analysis: Induced Abortion Complications Mistaken for Miscarriage in the Emergency Room are a Risk Factor for Hospitalization”

DISCLOSURE: Adam Marcus, a cofounder of Retraction Watch, is an editor at Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A journal and publisher have retracted three papers about abortion, including one that has been used in court cases to support the suspension of FDA approval for mifepristone, aka an “abortion pill.”

Sage, the publisher of Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology, announced the retractions yesterday and posted a retraction notice covering the three articles.

For one of those articles, initially flagged by a reader, “an independent reviewer with expertise in statistical analyses evaluated the concerns and opined that the article’s presentation of the data in Figures 2 and 3 leads to an inaccurate conclusion and that the composition of the cohort studied has problems that could affect the article’s conclusions,” according to the notice.

The notice also said Sage “confirmed that all but one of the article’s authors had an affiliation with one or more of Charlotte Lozier Institute, Elliot Institute, and American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, all pro-life advocacy organizations, despite having declared they had no conflicts of interest when they submitted the article for publication or in the article itself.” 

One of the peer reviewers, Sage learned, “was affiliated with Charlotte Lozier Institute at the time of the review,” leading the publisher and journal editor to determine “the peer review for initial publication was unreliable.” That referee also reviewed the other two now-retracted papers, according to Sage.

James Studnicki, the lead author of the three papers, told Retraction Watch the retractions were “a blatant attempt to discredit excellent research which is incongruent with a preferred abortion narrative.” He told The Daily Wire, a conservative news outlet that was first to report on the retractions, the move was “completely unjustified.” The Daily Wire notes that “The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in March on the legality of restricting the abortion pill based on [Judge Matthew] Kacsmaryk’s ruling, proceedings that will certainly be impacted by the retractions.”

Sage had subjected one of the papers to an expression of concern in August 2023, saying they were investigating “potential issues regarding the representation of data in the article and author conflicts of interest” after being alerted by a reader. As News From The States reported then, the notice came after Chris Adkins, a professor at South University who teaches pharmaceutical sciences, raised concerns with Sage. As News From The States noted in August:

Kacsmaryk leaned hard on a 2021 study that was designed, funded and produced by the research arm of one of the most powerful anti-abortion political groups in the U.S. The judge cited this paper — which looked at Medicaid patients’ visits to the emergency room within 30 days of having an abortion — to justify that a group of anti-abortion doctors and medical groups have legal standing to force the FDA to recall mifepristone.

In a point-by-point response to Sage’s critiques of the paper sent to the publisher in November and now shared with Retraction Watch, Studnicki and colleagues pointed out they had noted their affiliations in the original manuscript and the then-proposed retractions “misrepresent ICMJE disclosure standards,” referring to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ guidelines. They also call some of the post-publication peer reviewers’ critiques “factually incorrect” and “unfounded.” They conclude:

No single specific finding in any of the three papers has been explicitly challenged, let alone invalidated.

There is no evidence of a major error, miscalculation, fabrication, or falsification.

There is no breach of any of the COPE guidelines that could permit Sage to retract any of our published papers.

The retraction of any of these papers, let alone all three, is demonstrably unwarranted.

Adkins told Retraction Watch he is “pleased the journal approached my concerns with legitimate and serious consideration.” He continued:

It is reassuring that my initial concerns with the 2021 Studnicki et al. article were verified and affirmed by other experts. Despite the length of time spanning my initial communications with the journal and today’s retractions, I understand that thorough investigations and re-review processes take time. Given that these now-retracted articles have been excessively cited by parties involved in ongoing federal judicial cases, now positioned before the SCOTUS, Sage’s retractions should help our courts remain informed by the highest standards and quality in scientific and medical evidence.

Update, 2/6/24, 2100 UTC: We note that — contrary to best industry practices described by the Committee on Publication Ethics — Sage has removed the original versions of the articles. They are available at these links:

“A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Emergency Room Utilization Following Mifepristone Chemical and Surgical Abortions, 1999–2015”

“Doctors Who Perform Abortions: Their Characteristics and Patterns of Holding and Using Hospital Privileges”

“A Post Hoc Exploratory Analysis: Induced Abortion Complications Mistaken for Miscarriage in the Emergency Room are a Risk Factor for Hospitalization”

DISCLOSURE: Adam Marcus, a cofounder of Retraction Watch, is an editor at Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A journal and publisher have retracted three papers about abortion, including one that has been used in court cases to support the suspension of FDA approval for mifepristone, aka an “abortion pill.”

Sage, the publisher of Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology, announced the retractions yesterday and posted a retraction notice covering the three articles.

For one of those articles, initially flagged by a reader, “an independent reviewer with expertise in statistical analyses evaluated the concerns and opined that the article’s presentation of the data in Figures 2 and 3 leads to an inaccurate conclusion and that the composition of the cohort studied has problems that could affect the article’s conclusions,” according to the notice.

The notice also said Sage “confirmed that all but one of the article’s authors had an affiliation with one or more of Charlotte Lozier Institute, Elliot Institute, and American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, all pro-life advocacy organizations, despite having declared they had no conflicts of interest when they submitted the article for publication or in the article itself.” 

One of the peer reviewers, Sage learned, “was affiliated with Charlotte Lozier Institute at the time of the review,” leading the publisher and journal editor to determine “the peer review for initial publication was unreliable.” That referee also reviewed the other two now-retracted papers, according to Sage.

James Studnicki, the lead author of the three papers, told Retraction Watch the retractions were “a blatant attempt to discredit excellent research which is incongruent with a preferred abortion narrative.” He told The Daily Wire, a conservative news outlet that was first to report on the retractions, the move was “completely unjustified.” The Daily Wire notes that “The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in March on the legality of restricting the abortion pill based on [Judge Matthew] Kacsmaryk’s ruling, proceedings that will certainly be impacted by the retractions.”

Sage had subjected one of the papers to an expression of concern in August 2023, saying they were investigating “potential issues regarding the representation of data in the article and author conflicts of interest” after being alerted by a reader. As News From The States reported then, the notice came after Chris Adkins, a professor at South University who teaches pharmaceutical sciences, raised concerns with Sage. As News From The States noted in August:

Kacsmaryk leaned hard on a 2021 study that was designed, funded and produced by the research arm of one of the most powerful anti-abortion political groups in the U.S. The judge cited this paper — which looked at Medicaid patients’ visits to the emergency room within 30 days of having an abortion — to justify that a group of anti-abortion doctors and medical groups have legal standing to force the FDA to recall mifepristone.

In a point-by-point response to Sage’s critiques of the paper sent to the publisher in November and now shared with Retraction Watch, Studnicki and colleagues pointed out they had noted their affiliations in the original manuscript and the then-proposed retractions “misrepresent ICMJE disclosure standards,” referring to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ guidelines. They also call some of the post-publication peer reviewers’ critiques “factually incorrect” and “unfounded.” They conclude:

No single specific finding in any of the three papers has been explicitly challenged, let alone invalidated.

There is no evidence of a major error, miscalculation, fabrication, or falsification.

There is no breach of any of the COPE guidelines that could permit Sage to retract any of our published papers.

The retraction of any of these papers, let alone all three, is demonstrably unwarranted.

Adkins told Retraction Watch he is “pleased the journal approached my concerns with legitimate and serious consideration.” He continued:

It is reassuring that my initial concerns with the 2021 Studnicki et al. article were verified and affirmed by other experts. Despite the length of time spanning my initial communications with the journal and today’s retractions, I understand that thorough investigations and re-review processes take time. Given that these now-retracted articles have been excessively cited by parties involved in ongoing federal judicial cases, now positioned before the SCOTUS, Sage’s retractions should help our courts remain informed by the highest standards and quality in scientific and medical evidence.

Update, 2/6/24, 2100 UTC: We note that — contrary to best industry practices described by the Committee on Publication Ethics — Sage has removed the original versions of the articles. They are available at these links:

“A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Emergency Room Utilization Following Mifepristone Chemical and Surgical Abortions, 1999–2015”

“Doctors Who Perform Abortions: Their Characteristics and Patterns of Holding and Using Hospital Privileges”

“A Post Hoc Exploratory Analysis: Induced Abortion Complications Mistaken for Miscarriage in the Emergency Room are a Risk Factor for Hospitalization”

DISCLOSURE: Adam Marcus, a cofounder of Retraction Watch, is an editor at Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Comorbidities may play a large role in driving poor pregnancy outcomes in pregnant people with certain immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs).

In a new study of 12 individual IMIDs, people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) did not have signficantly increased risk for preterm birth (PTB) or low birth weight (LBW), compared with people who did not have an IMID, after adjusting for additional chronic conditions and other confounding factors.

The study was published online on February 1 in eClinicalMedicine.

While many studies have explored the relationships between pregnancy outcomes and IMIDs, “the impact of comorbidities on the relation between IMIDs and pregnancy course is insufficiently examined,” the authors wrote. These previous studies also tended to have a small sample size.
 

Pregnancy Outcome Risks Varied Between IMIDs

To remedy this, researchers used electronic health record data from Providence St Joseph Health — a multistate integrated healthcare system — to identify more than 365,000 pregnant people with live births between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2022. The cohort included more than 5700 people with at least one of 12 IMIDs: Psoriasis, IBD, RA, spondyloarthritis (SpA), multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), Sjögren syndrome (SjS), vasculitis, sarcoidosis, and systemic sclerosis. The study included only live births with a gestational age of 20 weeks or greater.

Researchers compared maternal-fetal health outcomes between the two groups, controlling for comorbidities including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, obesity, and depression. They also accounted for confounding variables including race, age, smoking status, and socioeconomic status.

In total, 83% of people in the IMID group had no immunomodulatory medication prescriptions during their pregnancy. Of the 17% taking medication, 48%-70% continued taking their medication until delivery. Most patients were White, comprising 62.9% of the non-IMID group and 73.1% of the IMID group.

After adjusting for comorbidities, patients with any of the 12 IMIDs had a 10%-20% higher risk for PTB, LBW, small for gestation age (SGA), and cesarean section than did comparators.

But these risks varied between IMIDs. Patients with RA and IBD did not have an increased risk for PTB or LBW. However, when researchers did not control for comorbidities, pregnancy risks were higher and showed statistical significance in these two groups.

“This suggests that for RA and IBD, comorbidities may be a more important factor for adverse outcomes than the underlying autoimmune disease,” senior author Jennifer Hadlock, MD, an associate professor and director of medical data science at the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, Washington, said in a video accompanying a press release.

Overall, the analysis found that women with IMIDs were approximately two to three times more likely to have chronic comorbidities than the control group.

Like previous studies, there was a strong association between SLE and APS and poor pregnancy outcomes, even after controlling for confounding factors. Patients with SpA had a 50% increased risk for PTB, while those with SLE and APS had more than a twofold higher risk. Patients with SLE were 90% more likely than comparators to deliver babies with an SGA condition, while RA patients had a 30% higher risk. SLE was the only condition with an increased risk for LBW (relative risk, 3.5). IBD, RA, PsA, SpA, SLE, APS, and SjS were all associated with a higher likelihood of delivery via cesarean section.

“The findings of this study reveal that the associations between IMIDs and adverse pregnancy outcomes are influenced by the specific type of IMIDs and the presence of comorbidities,” the authors wrote.
 

A Large Study, But How Representative Is It?

Asked to comment on the study, Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, noted that the analysis was much larger than many reproductive rheumatology studies, and “their statistics were phenomenal.”

She agreed that “not all autoimmune diseases are created equal when it comes to pregnancy-associated risks.” However, she added that this study’s patient population may not be totally representative of pregnant people with IMIDs or autoimmune diseases.

“We’re making generalizations about autoimmune diseases based on this demographic of White women who are not taking immunosuppression,” she said.

“We know that race and ethnicity play a huge role in pregnancy outcomes, and Black women have higher maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality, which is likely related to systemic racism and biases in the medical system,” she added. “While the study did control for sociodemographic factors, the population studied is not diverse.”

Only 17% of people with IMID in the cohort were on immunosuppressive medication, which could suggest low disease activity in the study population, Dr. Sims said. If the population generally had well-controlled disease, that could have positioned them for better pregnancy outcomes.

The authors noted that their analysis did not have information on IMID disease activity or severity — one of the limitations of the study.

However, the authors argued that the observed low prescription rate during the study may have increased poor pregnancy outcomes.

“Although this reflects real-world care in the population studied, results from this study may show higher risk than might be achieved with recommended care guidelines,” they wrote.

Ultimately, the authors argued that these findings show how co-occurring health conditions can affect pregnancy outcomes in autoimmune diseases, particularly for RA and IBD.

“There is a need to take comorbidities into consideration for guidelines for patients with inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis and when designing future research to investigate maternal health in patients with IMIDs,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sims declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hadlock has received research funding (paid to the institute) from Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Gilead.

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

Comorbidities may play a large role in driving poor pregnancy outcomes in pregnant people with certain immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs).

In a new study of 12 individual IMIDs, people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) did not have signficantly increased risk for preterm birth (PTB) or low birth weight (LBW), compared with people who did not have an IMID, after adjusting for additional chronic conditions and other confounding factors.

The study was published online on February 1 in eClinicalMedicine.

While many studies have explored the relationships between pregnancy outcomes and IMIDs, “the impact of comorbidities on the relation between IMIDs and pregnancy course is insufficiently examined,” the authors wrote. These previous studies also tended to have a small sample size.
 

Pregnancy Outcome Risks Varied Between IMIDs

To remedy this, researchers used electronic health record data from Providence St Joseph Health — a multistate integrated healthcare system — to identify more than 365,000 pregnant people with live births between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2022. The cohort included more than 5700 people with at least one of 12 IMIDs: Psoriasis, IBD, RA, spondyloarthritis (SpA), multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), Sjögren syndrome (SjS), vasculitis, sarcoidosis, and systemic sclerosis. The study included only live births with a gestational age of 20 weeks or greater.

Researchers compared maternal-fetal health outcomes between the two groups, controlling for comorbidities including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, obesity, and depression. They also accounted for confounding variables including race, age, smoking status, and socioeconomic status.

In total, 83% of people in the IMID group had no immunomodulatory medication prescriptions during their pregnancy. Of the 17% taking medication, 48%-70% continued taking their medication until delivery. Most patients were White, comprising 62.9% of the non-IMID group and 73.1% of the IMID group.

After adjusting for comorbidities, patients with any of the 12 IMIDs had a 10%-20% higher risk for PTB, LBW, small for gestation age (SGA), and cesarean section than did comparators.

But these risks varied between IMIDs. Patients with RA and IBD did not have an increased risk for PTB or LBW. However, when researchers did not control for comorbidities, pregnancy risks were higher and showed statistical significance in these two groups.

“This suggests that for RA and IBD, comorbidities may be a more important factor for adverse outcomes than the underlying autoimmune disease,” senior author Jennifer Hadlock, MD, an associate professor and director of medical data science at the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, Washington, said in a video accompanying a press release.

Overall, the analysis found that women with IMIDs were approximately two to three times more likely to have chronic comorbidities than the control group.

Like previous studies, there was a strong association between SLE and APS and poor pregnancy outcomes, even after controlling for confounding factors. Patients with SpA had a 50% increased risk for PTB, while those with SLE and APS had more than a twofold higher risk. Patients with SLE were 90% more likely than comparators to deliver babies with an SGA condition, while RA patients had a 30% higher risk. SLE was the only condition with an increased risk for LBW (relative risk, 3.5). IBD, RA, PsA, SpA, SLE, APS, and SjS were all associated with a higher likelihood of delivery via cesarean section.

“The findings of this study reveal that the associations between IMIDs and adverse pregnancy outcomes are influenced by the specific type of IMIDs and the presence of comorbidities,” the authors wrote.
 

A Large Study, But How Representative Is It?

Asked to comment on the study, Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, noted that the analysis was much larger than many reproductive rheumatology studies, and “their statistics were phenomenal.”

She agreed that “not all autoimmune diseases are created equal when it comes to pregnancy-associated risks.” However, she added that this study’s patient population may not be totally representative of pregnant people with IMIDs or autoimmune diseases.

“We’re making generalizations about autoimmune diseases based on this demographic of White women who are not taking immunosuppression,” she said.

“We know that race and ethnicity play a huge role in pregnancy outcomes, and Black women have higher maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality, which is likely related to systemic racism and biases in the medical system,” she added. “While the study did control for sociodemographic factors, the population studied is not diverse.”

Only 17% of people with IMID in the cohort were on immunosuppressive medication, which could suggest low disease activity in the study population, Dr. Sims said. If the population generally had well-controlled disease, that could have positioned them for better pregnancy outcomes.

The authors noted that their analysis did not have information on IMID disease activity or severity — one of the limitations of the study.

However, the authors argued that the observed low prescription rate during the study may have increased poor pregnancy outcomes.

“Although this reflects real-world care in the population studied, results from this study may show higher risk than might be achieved with recommended care guidelines,” they wrote.

Ultimately, the authors argued that these findings show how co-occurring health conditions can affect pregnancy outcomes in autoimmune diseases, particularly for RA and IBD.

“There is a need to take comorbidities into consideration for guidelines for patients with inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis and when designing future research to investigate maternal health in patients with IMIDs,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sims declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hadlock has received research funding (paid to the institute) from Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Gilead.

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

Comorbidities may play a large role in driving poor pregnancy outcomes in pregnant people with certain immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs).

In a new study of 12 individual IMIDs, people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) did not have signficantly increased risk for preterm birth (PTB) or low birth weight (LBW), compared with people who did not have an IMID, after adjusting for additional chronic conditions and other confounding factors.

The study was published online on February 1 in eClinicalMedicine.

While many studies have explored the relationships between pregnancy outcomes and IMIDs, “the impact of comorbidities on the relation between IMIDs and pregnancy course is insufficiently examined,” the authors wrote. These previous studies also tended to have a small sample size.
 

Pregnancy Outcome Risks Varied Between IMIDs

To remedy this, researchers used electronic health record data from Providence St Joseph Health — a multistate integrated healthcare system — to identify more than 365,000 pregnant people with live births between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2022. The cohort included more than 5700 people with at least one of 12 IMIDs: Psoriasis, IBD, RA, spondyloarthritis (SpA), multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), Sjögren syndrome (SjS), vasculitis, sarcoidosis, and systemic sclerosis. The study included only live births with a gestational age of 20 weeks or greater.

Researchers compared maternal-fetal health outcomes between the two groups, controlling for comorbidities including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, obesity, and depression. They also accounted for confounding variables including race, age, smoking status, and socioeconomic status.

In total, 83% of people in the IMID group had no immunomodulatory medication prescriptions during their pregnancy. Of the 17% taking medication, 48%-70% continued taking their medication until delivery. Most patients were White, comprising 62.9% of the non-IMID group and 73.1% of the IMID group.

After adjusting for comorbidities, patients with any of the 12 IMIDs had a 10%-20% higher risk for PTB, LBW, small for gestation age (SGA), and cesarean section than did comparators.

But these risks varied between IMIDs. Patients with RA and IBD did not have an increased risk for PTB or LBW. However, when researchers did not control for comorbidities, pregnancy risks were higher and showed statistical significance in these two groups.

“This suggests that for RA and IBD, comorbidities may be a more important factor for adverse outcomes than the underlying autoimmune disease,” senior author Jennifer Hadlock, MD, an associate professor and director of medical data science at the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, Washington, said in a video accompanying a press release.

Overall, the analysis found that women with IMIDs were approximately two to three times more likely to have chronic comorbidities than the control group.

Like previous studies, there was a strong association between SLE and APS and poor pregnancy outcomes, even after controlling for confounding factors. Patients with SpA had a 50% increased risk for PTB, while those with SLE and APS had more than a twofold higher risk. Patients with SLE were 90% more likely than comparators to deliver babies with an SGA condition, while RA patients had a 30% higher risk. SLE was the only condition with an increased risk for LBW (relative risk, 3.5). IBD, RA, PsA, SpA, SLE, APS, and SjS were all associated with a higher likelihood of delivery via cesarean section.

“The findings of this study reveal that the associations between IMIDs and adverse pregnancy outcomes are influenced by the specific type of IMIDs and the presence of comorbidities,” the authors wrote.
 

A Large Study, But How Representative Is It?

Asked to comment on the study, Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, noted that the analysis was much larger than many reproductive rheumatology studies, and “their statistics were phenomenal.”

She agreed that “not all autoimmune diseases are created equal when it comes to pregnancy-associated risks.” However, she added that this study’s patient population may not be totally representative of pregnant people with IMIDs or autoimmune diseases.

“We’re making generalizations about autoimmune diseases based on this demographic of White women who are not taking immunosuppression,” she said.

“We know that race and ethnicity play a huge role in pregnancy outcomes, and Black women have higher maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality, which is likely related to systemic racism and biases in the medical system,” she added. “While the study did control for sociodemographic factors, the population studied is not diverse.”

Only 17% of people with IMID in the cohort were on immunosuppressive medication, which could suggest low disease activity in the study population, Dr. Sims said. If the population generally had well-controlled disease, that could have positioned them for better pregnancy outcomes.

The authors noted that their analysis did not have information on IMID disease activity or severity — one of the limitations of the study.

However, the authors argued that the observed low prescription rate during the study may have increased poor pregnancy outcomes.

“Although this reflects real-world care in the population studied, results from this study may show higher risk than might be achieved with recommended care guidelines,” they wrote.

Ultimately, the authors argued that these findings show how co-occurring health conditions can affect pregnancy outcomes in autoimmune diseases, particularly for RA and IBD.

“There is a need to take comorbidities into consideration for guidelines for patients with inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis and when designing future research to investigate maternal health in patients with IMIDs,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sims declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hadlock has received research funding (paid to the institute) from Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Gilead.

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