MDedge ObGyn

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2), vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) before age 20 is associated with lower odds of progression.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 7904 women in Denmark who were undergoing active surveillance for CIN2 between 2007 and 2020.
• CIN2 lesions  on their own. Removing them can increase the risk for  during subsequent pregnancies, the researchers noted.
• Nearly half of the women had received at least one dose of an HPV vaccine at least 1 year before the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 28 months of follow-up, the risk for progression was 22.9% for women vaccinated before age 15, 31.5% for women vaccinated between ages 15 and 20, and 37.6% for women who were not vaccinated.
• Women vaccinated before age 15 had a 35% lower risk for progression than unvaccinated women, after adjusting for cytology, income, and education (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75).
• Cervical cancer developed in 0.37% of the unvaccinated women and 0.13% of the vaccinated women.
• All cases of cervical cancer in the vaccinated group occurred in women who received the vaccine after age 20.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that HPV vaccination status may be used to identify women at higher risk for progression, thereby enabling risk stratification at the time of CIN2 diagnosis,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Louise Krog, BscMed, with Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors had limited information about potential confounders such as smoking, immunosuppressive conditions, and the age at which patients became sexually active.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Carpenter Axel Kastrup-Nielsen’s Memorial Fund, and the Dagmar Marshall’s Fund. Co-authors disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, and Hologic.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2), vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) before age 20 is associated with lower odds of progression.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 7904 women in Denmark who were undergoing active surveillance for CIN2 between 2007 and 2020.
• CIN2 lesions  on their own. Removing them can increase the risk for  during subsequent pregnancies, the researchers noted.
• Nearly half of the women had received at least one dose of an HPV vaccine at least 1 year before the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 28 months of follow-up, the risk for progression was 22.9% for women vaccinated before age 15, 31.5% for women vaccinated between ages 15 and 20, and 37.6% for women who were not vaccinated.
• Women vaccinated before age 15 had a 35% lower risk for progression than unvaccinated women, after adjusting for cytology, income, and education (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75).
• Cervical cancer developed in 0.37% of the unvaccinated women and 0.13% of the vaccinated women.
• All cases of cervical cancer in the vaccinated group occurred in women who received the vaccine after age 20.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that HPV vaccination status may be used to identify women at higher risk for progression, thereby enabling risk stratification at the time of CIN2 diagnosis,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Louise Krog, BscMed, with Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors had limited information about potential confounders such as smoking, immunosuppressive conditions, and the age at which patients became sexually active.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Carpenter Axel Kastrup-Nielsen’s Memorial Fund, and the Dagmar Marshall’s Fund. Co-authors disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, and Hologic.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2), vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) before age 20 is associated with lower odds of progression.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 7904 women in Denmark who were undergoing active surveillance for CIN2 between 2007 and 2020.
• CIN2 lesions  on their own. Removing them can increase the risk for  during subsequent pregnancies, the researchers noted.
• Nearly half of the women had received at least one dose of an HPV vaccine at least 1 year before the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 28 months of follow-up, the risk for progression was 22.9% for women vaccinated before age 15, 31.5% for women vaccinated between ages 15 and 20, and 37.6% for women who were not vaccinated.
• Women vaccinated before age 15 had a 35% lower risk for progression than unvaccinated women, after adjusting for cytology, income, and education (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75).
• Cervical cancer developed in 0.37% of the unvaccinated women and 0.13% of the vaccinated women.
• All cases of cervical cancer in the vaccinated group occurred in women who received the vaccine after age 20.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that HPV vaccination status may be used to identify women at higher risk for progression, thereby enabling risk stratification at the time of CIN2 diagnosis,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Louise Krog, BscMed, with Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors had limited information about potential confounders such as smoking, immunosuppressive conditions, and the age at which patients became sexually active.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Carpenter Axel Kastrup-Nielsen’s Memorial Fund, and the Dagmar Marshall’s Fund. Co-authors disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, and Hologic.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA — Pharmacologic treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remains challenged by overall poor trial quality, clinical practice guidelines that offer differing advice, and a limited ability to predict individual risk and treatment response, but researchers at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America expressed hope for more clarity in the near future and the ability to someday individualize treatment to account for what is increasingly viewed as a heterogeneous condition.

Until studies in 2015 and 2018 cast doubt on glyburide, “we used to have 80% [of our GDM patients] on glyburide, and 20% on insulin,” Maisa Feghali, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, said during a discussion period. “Now we have 95% on insulin and 5% on oral hypoglycemics. I rely on insulin because I don’t have a better option, and I rely on research efforts [underway to provide better options]” in the future.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends insulin as the preferred first-line pharmacologic therapy for GDM when pharmacologic therapy is needed, with metformin as an option when patients decline or cannot safely use insulin. Glyburide, ACOG said in its 2018 practice bulletin on GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131[2]:e49-64), should not be recommended as a first-line pharmacologic therapy.

The Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, on the other hand, has accepted metformin as a “reasonable and safe” first-line alternative to insulin — while recognizing that half of women will still require insulin to achieve glycemic control — and does not rule out consideration of glyburide. In its 2018 statement on the pharmacologic treatment of GDM, the society said that the evidence of benefit of one oral agent over another remains limited.  

“When you have dueling guidelines, it means the data are not that clear,” George Saade, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, said in a presentation on GDM. An upcoming $12 million multicenter study to be led by the Ohio State University College of Medicine — coined the DECIDE trial — should provide clarity, he said.

The trial, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which funds comparative clinical effectiveness research designed to be broadly applicable to practice, will enroll and randomize over 1500 pregnant individuals with GDM to either oral metformin or insulin and will follow mothers and children until 2 years after delivery.

The study’s primary and secondary hypotheses, respectively, are that metformin is not inferior to insulin in reducing a composite adverse neonatal outcome (large for gestational age, neonatal hypoglycemia and/or hyperbilirubemia) and that metformin does not result in increased child body mass index at 2 years, compared with insulin. It will also look at patient-reported factors associated with metformin use compared to insulin use — factors that “are important ... to enable clinical implementation of study findings,” said Dr. Saade, who played a role in designing the study over the past several years.

The study will take a pragmatic, real-world approach by ensuring racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, urban and rural, and geographic diversity at both large academic and community-based sites across the United States.

The trial, to be led by Mark Landon, MD, and Kartik Venkatesh, MD, PhD, of Ohio State University, will be the first large trial in the United States to both directly compare the ability of oral hypoglycemics and insulin to prevent GDM-associated pregnancy complications, and to follow children for 2 years, Dr. Saade said. “Prior research was either outside the United States, not randomized, not adequately powered, or had no long-term child follow-up,” he added after the meeting.
 

The State Of Knowledge About Oral Hypoglycemics

The trial was envisioned several years ago as a three-arm comparative trial including the sulfonylurea glyburide, but data published in recent years has increasingly “not favored” glyburide, and many providers “have stopped using it,” Dr. Saade said during and after the meeting. At this point, “it would not be useful to include it” in a pragmatic trial, he said.

Glyburide became the number one agent after a seminal trial published in 2000 (N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1134-8) showed equivalent glycemic control in about 400 women with GDM who were randomized to receive insulin or glyburide. While the trial was not powered to evaluate other outcomes, there were no significant differences in neonatal complications.

In 2015, a large retrospective population-based study (JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169[5]:452-8) of more than 9,000 women with GDM showed higher risks of neonatal intensive care admission, neonatal hypoglycemia, and large-for-gestational age with glyburide compared with insulin. “It prompted a pause in thinking,” Dr. Saade recalled at the DPSG meeting. After that, several meta-analyses/systematic reviews compared the two treatments, showing varying and sometimes conflicting degrees of difference in neonatal outcomes.

In 2018, a French noninferiority randomized controlled trial (JAMA 2018;319[17]:1773-80) did not show that glyburide is not inferior to insulin in the prevention of perinatal outcomes (macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia, and hyperbilirubinemia). “If you add this trial to the systematic reviews, it would probably would shift more in favor of insulin,” Dr. Saade said, noting that the trial’s supplementary data included a higher rate of maternal hypoglycemia with glyburide. “I feel personally now, with all the data, that glyburide is inferior to insulin.”

A 2021 network meta-analysis (BMC Endocr Disord. 2021;21:199) that looked at glycemic control and neonatal outcomes in GDM treated with glyburide, metformin, or insulin, also offers valuable insight, Dr. Saade said. The meta-analysis used a Bayesian framework and presents results as a ranking estimated probability of a treatment being the best or worst — or in between — for different outcomes (glycemic control and neonatal outcomes), which “is one of the best ways to look at data these days,” he said.

“It tells us how likely [it is for one agent] to be better than others. Will it work most of the time? More than 60% of the time?” Dr. Saade explained. For example, the analysis “tell us that for large for gestational age, glyburide has a 94% chance of being the worst, metformin has an 80% change of being the best, and insulin a 76% chance of being in between.”

Overall, the 2021 analysis suggests that “glyburide is the most likely to be worst in most outcomes and that there is equipoise between metformin and insulin,” he said.

Meta-analyses of pharmacologic treatment of GDM have been challenged, he said, by inconsistent reporting in trials of GDM diagnostic criteria, severity of hyperglycemia, and small sample sizes (and wide confidence intervals). Criteria for supplemental insulin are also often “unclear” in trials, Dr. Saade said, as is involvement of social determinants of health and the “care package” enveloping pharmacologic interventions.

Dr. Saade, Dr. Landon, and other researchers have also lamented over the years that there is limited long-term follow-up of exposed offspring.
 

The Challenge of Heterogeneity

In another presentation on GDM, Maisa Feghali, MD, MS, emphasized that GDM is a heterogeneous condition, with clinical hyperglycemia not capturing individual variation in underlying physiologic processes. A 2016 study (Diabetes Care. 2016;39[6]:1052-5) assessing insulin sensitivity and secretion in 800-plus women at 24-30 weeks’ gestation found that about 50% of those with GDM had predominant insulin resistance, 30% had predominant insulin secretion deficit, and 20% were mixed.

Those with predominant insulin resistance had higher BMI, higher fasting glucose, larger infants, and greater risk of GDM-associated adverse outcomes, “suggesting that the risk is not universal or equivalent,” said Dr. Feghali, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh and the UPCM Magee-Women’s Hospital.

A 2019 multicenter European study (Diabetologia. 2019;62[11]:2118-28) found an even higher proportion of GDM involving predominant insulin resistance and, similarly, a greater risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in these women than in insulin-sensitive women with GDM, “again suggesting that there’s probably some benefit to looking deeper at physiology to understand individual risk,” she said.

Research published decades ago showed that insulin sensitivity decreases by over 50% during pregnancy, and “what we’ve come to recognize is there [can be] insulin secretion deficiency that’s not able to surmount or overcome the insulin resistance that develops during advanced gestation,” she said. “We need to think not at the population level but at the individual level.”

Dr. Feghali is leading the MATCh-GDM (Metabolic Analysis for Treatment Choice in GDM) study, which has been randomizing women to receive either usual, unmatched treatment or treatment matched to GDM mechanism — metformin for predominant insulin resistance, glyburide, or insulin for predominant insulin secretion defects, and one of the three for combined mechanisms. Data are not available yet.

There is still more to be learned about the pharmacologic effects of oral hypoglycemics, she noted, pointing to a 2020 study (Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;107[6]:1362-72) that randomized women to glyburide, metformin, or glyburide/metformin combination therapy and measured insulin sensitivity, beta-cell responsivity, and disposition index. (The latter describes the overall metabolic state and is a product of insulin sensitivity and total beta-cell responsivity.)

“Somewhat surprisingly, they found metformin performed better than glyburide,” shifting the overall disposition index closer to normal, Dr. Feghali said. “But not surprisingly, they found the combination worked best.”

Total beta-cell responsivity occurred in 56% of the glyburide group and 74% of the combination group. Improvements in insulin sensitivity occurred in 84% of the metformin group and 74% of the combination group. Surprisingly, there was “a decrease in first-phase insulin secretion” with glyburide, noted Dr. Feghali — a finding that means “the glyburide story has turned out to be a little more complicated.” With metformin, there was a positive change in insulin secretion as well as insulin sensitivity.

The authors’ conclusion, she noted, “is that there’s potential in thinking about metformin first, as the primary treatment, and then adding glyburide after that.”
 

Future Use Of Incretin Mimetics, and Intensive Targets in Overweight/Obesity

Dr. Feghali wonders whether incretin hormone mimetics — such as glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP) — could play a future role in GDM treatment, helping to increase insulin secretion.

She is currently recruiting for a pilot study on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in GDM of exenatide, a FDA-approved GLP-1 agonist that has been shown not to cross the placenta and that should, research suggests, lower the risk of maternal hypoglycemia and limit the risk of excessive fetal growth, “overcoming some of the concerns we have with glyburide,” Dr. Feghali said.

A recent study of the gut-generated incretin response during an oral glucose tolerance test in pregnant women with and without GDM showed that post-load GLP-1 and GIP were higher in women with GDM, and that the GLP-1 secretion was associated with insulin secretion only in those with GDM (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022;107(6):e2425-30). “In those with normal OGTT, insulin secretion was independent of GLP-1,” she said. “This study suggests there’s a potential role for incretin mimetics in GDM.”

Also regarding the individualization of GDM treatment, patients who are overweight or obese in the prepregnancy setting and have gestational diabetes represent a different phenotype, she noted, with higher fasting and postprandial blood glucose compared to normal-weight counterparts despite higher doses of medication.

“After controlling for gestational weight gain and glycemic control, we see there’s an independent effect of prepregnancy obesity specifically for an increased risk of macrosomia, preterm birth, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” said Dr. Feghali, referring to a 2015 retrospective study of GDM and obesity (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:316-25). “It suggests that we might think about redrawing the line, not on diagnosis and screening but on treatment.”

The randomized, controlled Intensive Glycemic Targets in Overweight and Obese Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (iGDM) trial, is now recruiting at multiple centers, including at Dr. Feghali’s University of Pittsburgh, and will investigate the effect of intensive glycemic targets (fasting < 90 mg/dL, 1-hour postprandial < 120 mg/dL) versus standard glycemic targets (fasting < 95 mg/dL, 1-hour postprandial < 140 mg/dL), she said.

In another presentation on GDM, Monica Longo, MD, PhD, of the Inova Health System in Fairfax, Va., said researchers are also looking at whether nutritional supplements such as myo-inositol can reduce the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in GDM, and whether probiotics can improve insulin sensitivity in some patients.

Data on newer insulin analogs in pregnancy are lacking, she noted. “Preliminary data has shown no malformations in infants, but there is some increase in hypoglycemia-related admissions to the NICU,” she said. “It’s worth it [to research more].”

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA — Pharmacologic treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remains challenged by overall poor trial quality, clinical practice guidelines that offer differing advice, and a limited ability to predict individual risk and treatment response, but researchers at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America expressed hope for more clarity in the near future and the ability to someday individualize treatment to account for what is increasingly viewed as a heterogeneous condition.

Until studies in 2015 and 2018 cast doubt on glyburide, “we used to have 80% [of our GDM patients] on glyburide, and 20% on insulin,” Maisa Feghali, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, said during a discussion period. “Now we have 95% on insulin and 5% on oral hypoglycemics. I rely on insulin because I don’t have a better option, and I rely on research efforts [underway to provide better options]” in the future.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends insulin as the preferred first-line pharmacologic therapy for GDM when pharmacologic therapy is needed, with metformin as an option when patients decline or cannot safely use insulin. Glyburide, ACOG said in its 2018 practice bulletin on GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131[2]:e49-64), should not be recommended as a first-line pharmacologic therapy.

The Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, on the other hand, has accepted metformin as a “reasonable and safe” first-line alternative to insulin — while recognizing that half of women will still require insulin to achieve glycemic control — and does not rule out consideration of glyburide. In its 2018 statement on the pharmacologic treatment of GDM, the society said that the evidence of benefit of one oral agent over another remains limited.  

“When you have dueling guidelines, it means the data are not that clear,” George Saade, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, said in a presentation on GDM. An upcoming $12 million multicenter study to be led by the Ohio State University College of Medicine — coined the DECIDE trial — should provide clarity, he said.

The trial, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which funds comparative clinical effectiveness research designed to be broadly applicable to practice, will enroll and randomize over 1500 pregnant individuals with GDM to either oral metformin or insulin and will follow mothers and children until 2 years after delivery.

The study’s primary and secondary hypotheses, respectively, are that metformin is not inferior to insulin in reducing a composite adverse neonatal outcome (large for gestational age, neonatal hypoglycemia and/or hyperbilirubemia) and that metformin does not result in increased child body mass index at 2 years, compared with insulin. It will also look at patient-reported factors associated with metformin use compared to insulin use — factors that “are important ... to enable clinical implementation of study findings,” said Dr. Saade, who played a role in designing the study over the past several years.

The study will take a pragmatic, real-world approach by ensuring racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, urban and rural, and geographic diversity at both large academic and community-based sites across the United States.

The trial, to be led by Mark Landon, MD, and Kartik Venkatesh, MD, PhD, of Ohio State University, will be the first large trial in the United States to both directly compare the ability of oral hypoglycemics and insulin to prevent GDM-associated pregnancy complications, and to follow children for 2 years, Dr. Saade said. “Prior research was either outside the United States, not randomized, not adequately powered, or had no long-term child follow-up,” he added after the meeting.
 

The State Of Knowledge About Oral Hypoglycemics

The trial was envisioned several years ago as a three-arm comparative trial including the sulfonylurea glyburide, but data published in recent years has increasingly “not favored” glyburide, and many providers “have stopped using it,” Dr. Saade said during and after the meeting. At this point, “it would not be useful to include it” in a pragmatic trial, he said.

Glyburide became the number one agent after a seminal trial published in 2000 (N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1134-8) showed equivalent glycemic control in about 400 women with GDM who were randomized to receive insulin or glyburide. While the trial was not powered to evaluate other outcomes, there were no significant differences in neonatal complications.

In 2015, a large retrospective population-based study (JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169[5]:452-8) of more than 9,000 women with GDM showed higher risks of neonatal intensive care admission, neonatal hypoglycemia, and large-for-gestational age with glyburide compared with insulin. “It prompted a pause in thinking,” Dr. Saade recalled at the DPSG meeting. After that, several meta-analyses/systematic reviews compared the two treatments, showing varying and sometimes conflicting degrees of difference in neonatal outcomes.

In 2018, a French noninferiority randomized controlled trial (JAMA 2018;319[17]:1773-80) did not show that glyburide is not inferior to insulin in the prevention of perinatal outcomes (macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia, and hyperbilirubinemia). “If you add this trial to the systematic reviews, it would probably would shift more in favor of insulin,” Dr. Saade said, noting that the trial’s supplementary data included a higher rate of maternal hypoglycemia with glyburide. “I feel personally now, with all the data, that glyburide is inferior to insulin.”

A 2021 network meta-analysis (BMC Endocr Disord. 2021;21:199) that looked at glycemic control and neonatal outcomes in GDM treated with glyburide, metformin, or insulin, also offers valuable insight, Dr. Saade said. The meta-analysis used a Bayesian framework and presents results as a ranking estimated probability of a treatment being the best or worst — or in between — for different outcomes (glycemic control and neonatal outcomes), which “is one of the best ways to look at data these days,” he said.

“It tells us how likely [it is for one agent] to be better than others. Will it work most of the time? More than 60% of the time?” Dr. Saade explained. For example, the analysis “tell us that for large for gestational age, glyburide has a 94% chance of being the worst, metformin has an 80% change of being the best, and insulin a 76% chance of being in between.”

Overall, the 2021 analysis suggests that “glyburide is the most likely to be worst in most outcomes and that there is equipoise between metformin and insulin,” he said.

Meta-analyses of pharmacologic treatment of GDM have been challenged, he said, by inconsistent reporting in trials of GDM diagnostic criteria, severity of hyperglycemia, and small sample sizes (and wide confidence intervals). Criteria for supplemental insulin are also often “unclear” in trials, Dr. Saade said, as is involvement of social determinants of health and the “care package” enveloping pharmacologic interventions.

Dr. Saade, Dr. Landon, and other researchers have also lamented over the years that there is limited long-term follow-up of exposed offspring.
 

The Challenge of Heterogeneity

In another presentation on GDM, Maisa Feghali, MD, MS, emphasized that GDM is a heterogeneous condition, with clinical hyperglycemia not capturing individual variation in underlying physiologic processes. A 2016 study (Diabetes Care. 2016;39[6]:1052-5) assessing insulin sensitivity and secretion in 800-plus women at 24-30 weeks’ gestation found that about 50% of those with GDM had predominant insulin resistance, 30% had predominant insulin secretion deficit, and 20% were mixed.

Those with predominant insulin resistance had higher BMI, higher fasting glucose, larger infants, and greater risk of GDM-associated adverse outcomes, “suggesting that the risk is not universal or equivalent,” said Dr. Feghali, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh and the UPCM Magee-Women’s Hospital.

A 2019 multicenter European study (Diabetologia. 2019;62[11]:2118-28) found an even higher proportion of GDM involving predominant insulin resistance and, similarly, a greater risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in these women than in insulin-sensitive women with GDM, “again suggesting that there’s probably some benefit to looking deeper at physiology to understand individual risk,” she said.

Research published decades ago showed that insulin sensitivity decreases by over 50% during pregnancy, and “what we’ve come to recognize is there [can be] insulin secretion deficiency that’s not able to surmount or overcome the insulin resistance that develops during advanced gestation,” she said. “We need to think not at the population level but at the individual level.”

Dr. Feghali is leading the MATCh-GDM (Metabolic Analysis for Treatment Choice in GDM) study, which has been randomizing women to receive either usual, unmatched treatment or treatment matched to GDM mechanism — metformin for predominant insulin resistance, glyburide, or insulin for predominant insulin secretion defects, and one of the three for combined mechanisms. Data are not available yet.

There is still more to be learned about the pharmacologic effects of oral hypoglycemics, she noted, pointing to a 2020 study (Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;107[6]:1362-72) that randomized women to glyburide, metformin, or glyburide/metformin combination therapy and measured insulin sensitivity, beta-cell responsivity, and disposition index. (The latter describes the overall metabolic state and is a product of insulin sensitivity and total beta-cell responsivity.)

“Somewhat surprisingly, they found metformin performed better than glyburide,” shifting the overall disposition index closer to normal, Dr. Feghali said. “But not surprisingly, they found the combination worked best.”

Total beta-cell responsivity occurred in 56% of the glyburide group and 74% of the combination group. Improvements in insulin sensitivity occurred in 84% of the metformin group and 74% of the combination group. Surprisingly, there was “a decrease in first-phase insulin secretion” with glyburide, noted Dr. Feghali — a finding that means “the glyburide story has turned out to be a little more complicated.” With metformin, there was a positive change in insulin secretion as well as insulin sensitivity.

The authors’ conclusion, she noted, “is that there’s potential in thinking about metformin first, as the primary treatment, and then adding glyburide after that.”
 

Future Use Of Incretin Mimetics, and Intensive Targets in Overweight/Obesity

Dr. Feghali wonders whether incretin hormone mimetics — such as glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP) — could play a future role in GDM treatment, helping to increase insulin secretion.

She is currently recruiting for a pilot study on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in GDM of exenatide, a FDA-approved GLP-1 agonist that has been shown not to cross the placenta and that should, research suggests, lower the risk of maternal hypoglycemia and limit the risk of excessive fetal growth, “overcoming some of the concerns we have with glyburide,” Dr. Feghali said.

A recent study of the gut-generated incretin response during an oral glucose tolerance test in pregnant women with and without GDM showed that post-load GLP-1 and GIP were higher in women with GDM, and that the GLP-1 secretion was associated with insulin secretion only in those with GDM (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022;107(6):e2425-30). “In those with normal OGTT, insulin secretion was independent of GLP-1,” she said. “This study suggests there’s a potential role for incretin mimetics in GDM.”

Also regarding the individualization of GDM treatment, patients who are overweight or obese in the prepregnancy setting and have gestational diabetes represent a different phenotype, she noted, with higher fasting and postprandial blood glucose compared to normal-weight counterparts despite higher doses of medication.

“After controlling for gestational weight gain and glycemic control, we see there’s an independent effect of prepregnancy obesity specifically for an increased risk of macrosomia, preterm birth, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” said Dr. Feghali, referring to a 2015 retrospective study of GDM and obesity (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:316-25). “It suggests that we might think about redrawing the line, not on diagnosis and screening but on treatment.”

The randomized, controlled Intensive Glycemic Targets in Overweight and Obese Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (iGDM) trial, is now recruiting at multiple centers, including at Dr. Feghali’s University of Pittsburgh, and will investigate the effect of intensive glycemic targets (fasting < 90 mg/dL, 1-hour postprandial < 120 mg/dL) versus standard glycemic targets (fasting < 95 mg/dL, 1-hour postprandial < 140 mg/dL), she said.

In another presentation on GDM, Monica Longo, MD, PhD, of the Inova Health System in Fairfax, Va., said researchers are also looking at whether nutritional supplements such as myo-inositol can reduce the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in GDM, and whether probiotics can improve insulin sensitivity in some patients.

Data on newer insulin analogs in pregnancy are lacking, she noted. “Preliminary data has shown no malformations in infants, but there is some increase in hypoglycemia-related admissions to the NICU,” she said. “It’s worth it [to research more].”

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA — Pharmacologic treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remains challenged by overall poor trial quality, clinical practice guidelines that offer differing advice, and a limited ability to predict individual risk and treatment response, but researchers at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America expressed hope for more clarity in the near future and the ability to someday individualize treatment to account for what is increasingly viewed as a heterogeneous condition.

Until studies in 2015 and 2018 cast doubt on glyburide, “we used to have 80% [of our GDM patients] on glyburide, and 20% on insulin,” Maisa Feghali, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, said during a discussion period. “Now we have 95% on insulin and 5% on oral hypoglycemics. I rely on insulin because I don’t have a better option, and I rely on research efforts [underway to provide better options]” in the future.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends insulin as the preferred first-line pharmacologic therapy for GDM when pharmacologic therapy is needed, with metformin as an option when patients decline or cannot safely use insulin. Glyburide, ACOG said in its 2018 practice bulletin on GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131[2]:e49-64), should not be recommended as a first-line pharmacologic therapy.

The Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, on the other hand, has accepted metformin as a “reasonable and safe” first-line alternative to insulin — while recognizing that half of women will still require insulin to achieve glycemic control — and does not rule out consideration of glyburide. In its 2018 statement on the pharmacologic treatment of GDM, the society said that the evidence of benefit of one oral agent over another remains limited.  

“When you have dueling guidelines, it means the data are not that clear,” George Saade, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, said in a presentation on GDM. An upcoming $12 million multicenter study to be led by the Ohio State University College of Medicine — coined the DECIDE trial — should provide clarity, he said.

The trial, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which funds comparative clinical effectiveness research designed to be broadly applicable to practice, will enroll and randomize over 1500 pregnant individuals with GDM to either oral metformin or insulin and will follow mothers and children until 2 years after delivery.

The study’s primary and secondary hypotheses, respectively, are that metformin is not inferior to insulin in reducing a composite adverse neonatal outcome (large for gestational age, neonatal hypoglycemia and/or hyperbilirubemia) and that metformin does not result in increased child body mass index at 2 years, compared with insulin. It will also look at patient-reported factors associated with metformin use compared to insulin use — factors that “are important ... to enable clinical implementation of study findings,” said Dr. Saade, who played a role in designing the study over the past several years.

The study will take a pragmatic, real-world approach by ensuring racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, urban and rural, and geographic diversity at both large academic and community-based sites across the United States.

The trial, to be led by Mark Landon, MD, and Kartik Venkatesh, MD, PhD, of Ohio State University, will be the first large trial in the United States to both directly compare the ability of oral hypoglycemics and insulin to prevent GDM-associated pregnancy complications, and to follow children for 2 years, Dr. Saade said. “Prior research was either outside the United States, not randomized, not adequately powered, or had no long-term child follow-up,” he added after the meeting.
 

The State Of Knowledge About Oral Hypoglycemics

The trial was envisioned several years ago as a three-arm comparative trial including the sulfonylurea glyburide, but data published in recent years has increasingly “not favored” glyburide, and many providers “have stopped using it,” Dr. Saade said during and after the meeting. At this point, “it would not be useful to include it” in a pragmatic trial, he said.

Glyburide became the number one agent after a seminal trial published in 2000 (N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1134-8) showed equivalent glycemic control in about 400 women with GDM who were randomized to receive insulin or glyburide. While the trial was not powered to evaluate other outcomes, there were no significant differences in neonatal complications.

In 2015, a large retrospective population-based study (JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169[5]:452-8) of more than 9,000 women with GDM showed higher risks of neonatal intensive care admission, neonatal hypoglycemia, and large-for-gestational age with glyburide compared with insulin. “It prompted a pause in thinking,” Dr. Saade recalled at the DPSG meeting. After that, several meta-analyses/systematic reviews compared the two treatments, showing varying and sometimes conflicting degrees of difference in neonatal outcomes.

In 2018, a French noninferiority randomized controlled trial (JAMA 2018;319[17]:1773-80) did not show that glyburide is not inferior to insulin in the prevention of perinatal outcomes (macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia, and hyperbilirubinemia). “If you add this trial to the systematic reviews, it would probably would shift more in favor of insulin,” Dr. Saade said, noting that the trial’s supplementary data included a higher rate of maternal hypoglycemia with glyburide. “I feel personally now, with all the data, that glyburide is inferior to insulin.”

A 2021 network meta-analysis (BMC Endocr Disord. 2021;21:199) that looked at glycemic control and neonatal outcomes in GDM treated with glyburide, metformin, or insulin, also offers valuable insight, Dr. Saade said. The meta-analysis used a Bayesian framework and presents results as a ranking estimated probability of a treatment being the best or worst — or in between — for different outcomes (glycemic control and neonatal outcomes), which “is one of the best ways to look at data these days,” he said.

“It tells us how likely [it is for one agent] to be better than others. Will it work most of the time? More than 60% of the time?” Dr. Saade explained. For example, the analysis “tell us that for large for gestational age, glyburide has a 94% chance of being the worst, metformin has an 80% change of being the best, and insulin a 76% chance of being in between.”

Overall, the 2021 analysis suggests that “glyburide is the most likely to be worst in most outcomes and that there is equipoise between metformin and insulin,” he said.

Meta-analyses of pharmacologic treatment of GDM have been challenged, he said, by inconsistent reporting in trials of GDM diagnostic criteria, severity of hyperglycemia, and small sample sizes (and wide confidence intervals). Criteria for supplemental insulin are also often “unclear” in trials, Dr. Saade said, as is involvement of social determinants of health and the “care package” enveloping pharmacologic interventions.

Dr. Saade, Dr. Landon, and other researchers have also lamented over the years that there is limited long-term follow-up of exposed offspring.
 

The Challenge of Heterogeneity

In another presentation on GDM, Maisa Feghali, MD, MS, emphasized that GDM is a heterogeneous condition, with clinical hyperglycemia not capturing individual variation in underlying physiologic processes. A 2016 study (Diabetes Care. 2016;39[6]:1052-5) assessing insulin sensitivity and secretion in 800-plus women at 24-30 weeks’ gestation found that about 50% of those with GDM had predominant insulin resistance, 30% had predominant insulin secretion deficit, and 20% were mixed.

Those with predominant insulin resistance had higher BMI, higher fasting glucose, larger infants, and greater risk of GDM-associated adverse outcomes, “suggesting that the risk is not universal or equivalent,” said Dr. Feghali, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh and the UPCM Magee-Women’s Hospital.

A 2019 multicenter European study (Diabetologia. 2019;62[11]:2118-28) found an even higher proportion of GDM involving predominant insulin resistance and, similarly, a greater risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in these women than in insulin-sensitive women with GDM, “again suggesting that there’s probably some benefit to looking deeper at physiology to understand individual risk,” she said.

Research published decades ago showed that insulin sensitivity decreases by over 50% during pregnancy, and “what we’ve come to recognize is there [can be] insulin secretion deficiency that’s not able to surmount or overcome the insulin resistance that develops during advanced gestation,” she said. “We need to think not at the population level but at the individual level.”

Dr. Feghali is leading the MATCh-GDM (Metabolic Analysis for Treatment Choice in GDM) study, which has been randomizing women to receive either usual, unmatched treatment or treatment matched to GDM mechanism — metformin for predominant insulin resistance, glyburide, or insulin for predominant insulin secretion defects, and one of the three for combined mechanisms. Data are not available yet.

There is still more to be learned about the pharmacologic effects of oral hypoglycemics, she noted, pointing to a 2020 study (Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;107[6]:1362-72) that randomized women to glyburide, metformin, or glyburide/metformin combination therapy and measured insulin sensitivity, beta-cell responsivity, and disposition index. (The latter describes the overall metabolic state and is a product of insulin sensitivity and total beta-cell responsivity.)

“Somewhat surprisingly, they found metformin performed better than glyburide,” shifting the overall disposition index closer to normal, Dr. Feghali said. “But not surprisingly, they found the combination worked best.”

Total beta-cell responsivity occurred in 56% of the glyburide group and 74% of the combination group. Improvements in insulin sensitivity occurred in 84% of the metformin group and 74% of the combination group. Surprisingly, there was “a decrease in first-phase insulin secretion” with glyburide, noted Dr. Feghali — a finding that means “the glyburide story has turned out to be a little more complicated.” With metformin, there was a positive change in insulin secretion as well as insulin sensitivity.

The authors’ conclusion, she noted, “is that there’s potential in thinking about metformin first, as the primary treatment, and then adding glyburide after that.”
 

Future Use Of Incretin Mimetics, and Intensive Targets in Overweight/Obesity

Dr. Feghali wonders whether incretin hormone mimetics — such as glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP) — could play a future role in GDM treatment, helping to increase insulin secretion.

She is currently recruiting for a pilot study on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in GDM of exenatide, a FDA-approved GLP-1 agonist that has been shown not to cross the placenta and that should, research suggests, lower the risk of maternal hypoglycemia and limit the risk of excessive fetal growth, “overcoming some of the concerns we have with glyburide,” Dr. Feghali said.

A recent study of the gut-generated incretin response during an oral glucose tolerance test in pregnant women with and without GDM showed that post-load GLP-1 and GIP were higher in women with GDM, and that the GLP-1 secretion was associated with insulin secretion only in those with GDM (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022;107(6):e2425-30). “In those with normal OGTT, insulin secretion was independent of GLP-1,” she said. “This study suggests there’s a potential role for incretin mimetics in GDM.”

Also regarding the individualization of GDM treatment, patients who are overweight or obese in the prepregnancy setting and have gestational diabetes represent a different phenotype, she noted, with higher fasting and postprandial blood glucose compared to normal-weight counterparts despite higher doses of medication.

“After controlling for gestational weight gain and glycemic control, we see there’s an independent effect of prepregnancy obesity specifically for an increased risk of macrosomia, preterm birth, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” said Dr. Feghali, referring to a 2015 retrospective study of GDM and obesity (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:316-25). “It suggests that we might think about redrawing the line, not on diagnosis and screening but on treatment.”

The randomized, controlled Intensive Glycemic Targets in Overweight and Obese Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (iGDM) trial, is now recruiting at multiple centers, including at Dr. Feghali’s University of Pittsburgh, and will investigate the effect of intensive glycemic targets (fasting < 90 mg/dL, 1-hour postprandial < 120 mg/dL) versus standard glycemic targets (fasting < 95 mg/dL, 1-hour postprandial < 140 mg/dL), she said.

In another presentation on GDM, Monica Longo, MD, PhD, of the Inova Health System in Fairfax, Va., said researchers are also looking at whether nutritional supplements such as myo-inositol can reduce the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in GDM, and whether probiotics can improve insulin sensitivity in some patients.

Data on newer insulin analogs in pregnancy are lacking, she noted. “Preliminary data has shown no malformations in infants, but there is some increase in hypoglycemia-related admissions to the NICU,” she said. “It’s worth it [to research more].”

Taking 500 mg of calcium a day reduces the likelihood of pregnant women developing preeclampsia in pregnant women as much as higher doses, according to a study in The New England Journal of Medicine published on January 11. 

The study also shows that the lower dose of calcium protects against preterm birth almost as well as the higher dose recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). 

Preeclampsia complicates up to 8% of pregnancies and may contribute to 45,000 maternal deaths globally every year. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that preeclampsia occurs in about 1 in 25 pregnancies, and Black women are 60% more likely to develop the condition than are White women.

Calcium supplementation reduces the risks for preeclampsia, per WHO guidelines. 

The WHO has recommended between 1500 mg and 2000 mg of calcium supplementation daily along with one 30- to 60-mg iron pill for pregnant women who receive insufficient calcium in their diets, which the WHO says generally occurs in lower-income nations and not wealthier nations, such as the United States. 

This dosage amounts to a minimum of three calcium pills per day because the dietary supplements generally come from suppliers in 500-mg doses. Researchers say the supplements are too expensive for many health authorities of low- and middle-income nations to provide, and that taking so many pills presents a barrier to use even if they were plentiful. In countries such as Tanzania and India, governments generally distribute supplements like calcium for free at health clinics, said Christopher Sudfeld, ScD, associate professor of global health and nutrition at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, in Boston.

The WHO recommendation is “not implemented many places,” Dr. Sudfeld said. Due to the cost, Tanzania has never implemented WHO’s calcium recommendation, providing only the iron pill, he said. 

The randomized double-blinded study included 11,000 pregnant women in Tanzania and 11,000 pregnant women in India. None had yet given birth, which increased their risk for preeclampsia. All participants were older than 18 years and were less than 20 weeks pregnant, according to their most recent menstrual date. Half of participants received the three daily 500-mg calcium pills recommended by WHO; the other half received a single calcium pill and two placebo pills. 

Researchers measured blood pressure and urine protein levels starting at 20 weeks of gestation, at delivery, and 6 weeks after giving birth. 

Regardless of how much calcium people consumed daily, preeclampsia occurred approximately 3% of both the 500-mg and 1500-mg groups. Similar rates of preterm births occurred in both groups, although in Tanzanian, women in the 500-mg arm were somewhat more likely to give birth early. 

“We’re working with governments but we’re also going to disseminate the results to WHO, so that they can do their process for the next antenatal care guidelines, to potentially change the global guidelines,” to support a lower calcium supplement target, Dr. Sudfeld said. 
 

Does Calcium Actually Prevent Preeclampsia?

But Ahizechukwu Eke, MD, PhD, MPH, a pharmacologist who practices maternal fetal medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, questioned whether calcium really works to prevent preeclampsia. 

Eke said that the causes of preeclampsia are multifactorial, and researchers have yet to definitively demonstrate the mechanism of action by which calcium works to prevent the condition. One hypothesis is that calcium reduces the amount of contractions in a woman’s uterus, thereby lowering blood pressure. 

Low-dose aspirin is also used to prevent preeclampsia, and Dr. Eke said that the pharmacokinetic pathway by which this drug inhibits preeclampsia is more clear.

“I’m not saying we should stop using calcium, far from it,” Dr. Eke said. But as calcium supplementation to prevent preeclampsia continues, Dr. Eke called for pharmacokinetic studies to explore whether and how calcium works.

Dr. Sudfeld and Dr. Eke report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Taking 500 mg of calcium a day reduces the likelihood of pregnant women developing preeclampsia in pregnant women as much as higher doses, according to a study in The New England Journal of Medicine published on January 11. 

The study also shows that the lower dose of calcium protects against preterm birth almost as well as the higher dose recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). 

Preeclampsia complicates up to 8% of pregnancies and may contribute to 45,000 maternal deaths globally every year. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that preeclampsia occurs in about 1 in 25 pregnancies, and Black women are 60% more likely to develop the condition than are White women.

Calcium supplementation reduces the risks for preeclampsia, per WHO guidelines. 

The WHO has recommended between 1500 mg and 2000 mg of calcium supplementation daily along with one 30- to 60-mg iron pill for pregnant women who receive insufficient calcium in their diets, which the WHO says generally occurs in lower-income nations and not wealthier nations, such as the United States. 

This dosage amounts to a minimum of three calcium pills per day because the dietary supplements generally come from suppliers in 500-mg doses. Researchers say the supplements are too expensive for many health authorities of low- and middle-income nations to provide, and that taking so many pills presents a barrier to use even if they were plentiful. In countries such as Tanzania and India, governments generally distribute supplements like calcium for free at health clinics, said Christopher Sudfeld, ScD, associate professor of global health and nutrition at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, in Boston.

The WHO recommendation is “not implemented many places,” Dr. Sudfeld said. Due to the cost, Tanzania has never implemented WHO’s calcium recommendation, providing only the iron pill, he said. 

The randomized double-blinded study included 11,000 pregnant women in Tanzania and 11,000 pregnant women in India. None had yet given birth, which increased their risk for preeclampsia. All participants were older than 18 years and were less than 20 weeks pregnant, according to their most recent menstrual date. Half of participants received the three daily 500-mg calcium pills recommended by WHO; the other half received a single calcium pill and two placebo pills. 

Researchers measured blood pressure and urine protein levels starting at 20 weeks of gestation, at delivery, and 6 weeks after giving birth. 

Regardless of how much calcium people consumed daily, preeclampsia occurred approximately 3% of both the 500-mg and 1500-mg groups. Similar rates of preterm births occurred in both groups, although in Tanzanian, women in the 500-mg arm were somewhat more likely to give birth early. 

“We’re working with governments but we’re also going to disseminate the results to WHO, so that they can do their process for the next antenatal care guidelines, to potentially change the global guidelines,” to support a lower calcium supplement target, Dr. Sudfeld said. 
 

Does Calcium Actually Prevent Preeclampsia?

But Ahizechukwu Eke, MD, PhD, MPH, a pharmacologist who practices maternal fetal medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, questioned whether calcium really works to prevent preeclampsia. 

Eke said that the causes of preeclampsia are multifactorial, and researchers have yet to definitively demonstrate the mechanism of action by which calcium works to prevent the condition. One hypothesis is that calcium reduces the amount of contractions in a woman’s uterus, thereby lowering blood pressure. 

Low-dose aspirin is also used to prevent preeclampsia, and Dr. Eke said that the pharmacokinetic pathway by which this drug inhibits preeclampsia is more clear.

“I’m not saying we should stop using calcium, far from it,” Dr. Eke said. But as calcium supplementation to prevent preeclampsia continues, Dr. Eke called for pharmacokinetic studies to explore whether and how calcium works.

Dr. Sudfeld and Dr. Eke report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Taking 500 mg of calcium a day reduces the likelihood of pregnant women developing preeclampsia in pregnant women as much as higher doses, according to a study in The New England Journal of Medicine published on January 11. 

The study also shows that the lower dose of calcium protects against preterm birth almost as well as the higher dose recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). 

Preeclampsia complicates up to 8% of pregnancies and may contribute to 45,000 maternal deaths globally every year. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that preeclampsia occurs in about 1 in 25 pregnancies, and Black women are 60% more likely to develop the condition than are White women.

Calcium supplementation reduces the risks for preeclampsia, per WHO guidelines. 

The WHO has recommended between 1500 mg and 2000 mg of calcium supplementation daily along with one 30- to 60-mg iron pill for pregnant women who receive insufficient calcium in their diets, which the WHO says generally occurs in lower-income nations and not wealthier nations, such as the United States. 

This dosage amounts to a minimum of three calcium pills per day because the dietary supplements generally come from suppliers in 500-mg doses. Researchers say the supplements are too expensive for many health authorities of low- and middle-income nations to provide, and that taking so many pills presents a barrier to use even if they were plentiful. In countries such as Tanzania and India, governments generally distribute supplements like calcium for free at health clinics, said Christopher Sudfeld, ScD, associate professor of global health and nutrition at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, in Boston.

The WHO recommendation is “not implemented many places,” Dr. Sudfeld said. Due to the cost, Tanzania has never implemented WHO’s calcium recommendation, providing only the iron pill, he said. 

The randomized double-blinded study included 11,000 pregnant women in Tanzania and 11,000 pregnant women in India. None had yet given birth, which increased their risk for preeclampsia. All participants were older than 18 years and were less than 20 weeks pregnant, according to their most recent menstrual date. Half of participants received the three daily 500-mg calcium pills recommended by WHO; the other half received a single calcium pill and two placebo pills. 

Researchers measured blood pressure and urine protein levels starting at 20 weeks of gestation, at delivery, and 6 weeks after giving birth. 

Regardless of how much calcium people consumed daily, preeclampsia occurred approximately 3% of both the 500-mg and 1500-mg groups. Similar rates of preterm births occurred in both groups, although in Tanzanian, women in the 500-mg arm were somewhat more likely to give birth early. 

“We’re working with governments but we’re also going to disseminate the results to WHO, so that they can do their process for the next antenatal care guidelines, to potentially change the global guidelines,” to support a lower calcium supplement target, Dr. Sudfeld said. 
 

Does Calcium Actually Prevent Preeclampsia?

But Ahizechukwu Eke, MD, PhD, MPH, a pharmacologist who practices maternal fetal medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, questioned whether calcium really works to prevent preeclampsia. 

Eke said that the causes of preeclampsia are multifactorial, and researchers have yet to definitively demonstrate the mechanism of action by which calcium works to prevent the condition. One hypothesis is that calcium reduces the amount of contractions in a woman’s uterus, thereby lowering blood pressure. 

Low-dose aspirin is also used to prevent preeclampsia, and Dr. Eke said that the pharmacokinetic pathway by which this drug inhibits preeclampsia is more clear.

“I’m not saying we should stop using calcium, far from it,” Dr. Eke said. But as calcium supplementation to prevent preeclampsia continues, Dr. Eke called for pharmacokinetic studies to explore whether and how calcium works.

Dr. Sudfeld and Dr. Eke report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA — The lack of data on optimal timing of delivery for pregnancies complicated by diabetes remains a major challenge in obstetrics — one with considerable implications given the high and rising prevalence of pregestational and gestational diabetes, Katherine Laughon Grantz, MD, MS, of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.

“While 39-40 weeks might be ideal for low-risk pregnancies, the optimal timing for pregnancies with complications [like diabetes] is unknown,” said Dr. Grantz, a senior investigator in the NICHD’s epidemiology branch.

The percentage of mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) increased from 6% in 2016 to 8% in 2021, according to the most recent data from the National Vital Statistics System of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:16). Meanwhile, the prevalence of prepregnancy obesity, which raises the risk of gestational and type 2 diabetes, was 29% in 2019; this represents an 11% increase from 2015 (NCHS Data Brief. 2020;392:1-8) and has occurred across all maternal ages, races, ethnic groups, and educational levels, she said.

“The reason clinicians deliver pregnancies with diabetes earlier is because there’s a decreased risk of macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, and stillbirth. And these risks need to be balanced with the increased risk of neonatal morbidity and mortality associated with earlier delivery,” said Dr. Grantz, who noted during her talk that delivery timing also appears to influence long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. “Yet despite [diabetes in pregnancy] being so common, there is complete uncertainty about when to deliver.”
 

ACOG Recommendations, Randomized Trials (New And Old)

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in a Committee Opinion on Medically Indicated Late-Preterm and Early-Term Deliveries, published in collaboration with the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, offers recommendations based on the type of diabetes and the level of control. For instance, the suggested delivery timing for well-controlled GDM is full term (39 0/7 to 40 6/7 weeks of gestation), while the recommendation for poorly controlled diabetes is individualized late preterm/early term management (Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138:e35-9).

In defining and evaluating control, she noted, “the clinical focus is on glucose, but there are likely other important parameters that are not taken into account ... which [could be] important when considering the timing of delivery.” Potentially important factors include estimated fetal weight, fetal growth velocity, lipids, and amino acids, she said.

ACOG’s recommendations are based mainly on retrospective data, Dr. Grantz said. Only two randomized controlled trials have investigated the timing of delivery in the context of diabetes, and both focused on cesarean section and were “generally underpowered to study neonatal outcomes,” she said.

The first RCT, published in 1993, enrolled 200 women with uncomplicated insulin-requiring diabetes (187 with GDM and 13 with pregestational diabetes) at 38 weeks of gestation, and compared active induction of labor within 5 days to expectant management. There was no significant difference in the cesarean delivery rate (the primary outcome), but rates of macrosomia and large for gestational age were higher in the expectant management group (27% vs. 15%, P = .05, and 23% vs. 10%, P = .02, respectively). Shoulder dystocia occurred in three deliveries, each of which was expectantly managed (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;169[3]:611-5). Notably, the study included “only women with excellent glucose control,” Dr. Grantz said.

The second RCT, published in 2017 by a group in Italy, enrolled 425 patients with GDM (diagnosed by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria) between week 38 and week 39 of gestation and similarly randomized them to induction of labor or expectant management. No difference in cesarean delivery was found (BJOG. 2017;124[4]:669-77). Induction of labor was associated with a higher risk of hyperbilirubinemia, and there was a trend toward a decreased risk of macrosomia, but again, the study was underpowered to detect differences in most outcomes, she said. (The study also was stopped early because of an inability to recruit, she noted.)

Dr. Grantz is currently recruiting for a randomized trial aimed at determining the optimal time between 37 and 39 weeks to initiate delivery — the time when neonatal morbidity and perinatal mortality risk is the lowest – for uncontrolled GDM-complicated pregnancies. The trial is designed to recruit up to 3,450 pregnant women with uncontrolled GDM and randomize the timing of their delivery (NCT05515744).

Those who are eligible for the study but do not consent to participate in randomization for delivery will be asked about chart review only (an estimated additional 3,000). The SPAN TIME study will also assess newborn development and behavior outcomes, as well as anthropometric measures, as secondary outcomes. An exploratory analysis will look for clinical, nonclinical or biochemical factors that could be helpful in optimizing delivery timing.

What Retrospective Studies Reveal

Factors that may influence the timing of delivery include the duration of neonatal exposure to hyperglycemia/hyperinsulinemia (pregestational vs. gestational diabetes), the level of diabetes control, and comorbidities (e.g. maternal renal disease or chronic hypertension). However, research “investigating how these factors influence morbidity and the timing of delivery is limited,” said Dr. Grantz.

Overall, it has been difficult through retrospective studies, she said, to investigate neonatal morbidity in diabetic pregnancies and tease apart the relative effects of diabetes as a precursor for early delivery and prematurity itself. Among the studies suggesting an independent risk of diabetes is a retrospective study focusing on neonatal respiratory morbidity — “one of the most common adverse outcomes associated with diabetes.”

The study, an analysis of the Consortium on Safe Labor study (an electronic medical record study of more than 220,000 singleton pregnancies), stratified morbidity by the probability of delivering at term (≥ 37 weeks). GDM and pregestational diabetes complicated 5.1% and 1.5% of the pregnancies, respectively, and were found to be associated with increased risks of neonatal respiratory morbidity compared to women without diabetes — regardless of the probability of delivering at term.

However, these associations were stronger with a higher probability of delivering at term, which suggests that the neonatal respiratory morbidity associated with diabetes is not fully explained by a greater propensity for prematurity (Am J Perinatol. 2017;34[11]:1160-8).

In addition, the rates of all neonatal respiratory morbidities and mortality were higher for pregestational diabetes compared with gestational diabetes, said Dr. Grantz, a senior author of the study. (Morbidities included neonatal intensive care unit admission, transient tachypnea of newborn, apnea, respiratory distress syndrome, mechanical ventilation, and stillbirth.)

The pathophysiology of diabetes and neonatal respiratory morbidity is “not fully known,” she said. It is believed that fetal hyperinsulinemia may cause delayed pulmonary maturation and there is evidence from animal studies that insulin decreases the incorporation of glucose and fatty acids into phospholipid phosphatidylglycerol. Indirect effects stem from the physiologic immaturity of earlier delivery and a higher cesarean delivery rate in pregnancies complicated by diabetes, Dr. Grantz said.

Among other retrospective studies was a population-based study from Canada (2004-2014), published in 2020, of large numbers of women with all types of diabetes and a comparison group of over 2.5 million without diabetes. For maternal morbidity/mortality, there were no significant differences by gestational age between iatrogenic delivery and expectant management among any form of diabetes. But for neonatal morbidity and mortality, the study found differences.

In women with gestational diabetes, iatrogenic delivery was associated with increased risk of neonatal morbidity/mortality at 36 and 37 weeks’ gestation and with decreased risk at weeks 38-40. Increased risk with iatrogenic delivery was also found for women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes at weeks 36 and 37 (Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99[3]:341-9).

Another retrospective study using California vital statistics (1997-2006) examined rates of stillbirth and infant death in women with GDM by gestational age at delivery (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206[4]:309.e1-e7). The 190,000-plus women with GDM had elevated risk of stillbirth at each gestational age compared to those without GDM, but “the [excess] risk for GDM was lowest at 38 weeks and again at 40 weeks,” Dr. Grantz said. The investigators concluded, she said, “that the risk of expectant management exceeded that of delivery at 38 weeks and beyond.”

Dr. Grantz reported no disclosures.

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA — The lack of data on optimal timing of delivery for pregnancies complicated by diabetes remains a major challenge in obstetrics — one with considerable implications given the high and rising prevalence of pregestational and gestational diabetes, Katherine Laughon Grantz, MD, MS, of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.

“While 39-40 weeks might be ideal for low-risk pregnancies, the optimal timing for pregnancies with complications [like diabetes] is unknown,” said Dr. Grantz, a senior investigator in the NICHD’s epidemiology branch.

The percentage of mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) increased from 6% in 2016 to 8% in 2021, according to the most recent data from the National Vital Statistics System of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:16). Meanwhile, the prevalence of prepregnancy obesity, which raises the risk of gestational and type 2 diabetes, was 29% in 2019; this represents an 11% increase from 2015 (NCHS Data Brief. 2020;392:1-8) and has occurred across all maternal ages, races, ethnic groups, and educational levels, she said.

“The reason clinicians deliver pregnancies with diabetes earlier is because there’s a decreased risk of macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, and stillbirth. And these risks need to be balanced with the increased risk of neonatal morbidity and mortality associated with earlier delivery,” said Dr. Grantz, who noted during her talk that delivery timing also appears to influence long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. “Yet despite [diabetes in pregnancy] being so common, there is complete uncertainty about when to deliver.”
 

ACOG Recommendations, Randomized Trials (New And Old)

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in a Committee Opinion on Medically Indicated Late-Preterm and Early-Term Deliveries, published in collaboration with the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, offers recommendations based on the type of diabetes and the level of control. For instance, the suggested delivery timing for well-controlled GDM is full term (39 0/7 to 40 6/7 weeks of gestation), while the recommendation for poorly controlled diabetes is individualized late preterm/early term management (Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138:e35-9).

In defining and evaluating control, she noted, “the clinical focus is on glucose, but there are likely other important parameters that are not taken into account ... which [could be] important when considering the timing of delivery.” Potentially important factors include estimated fetal weight, fetal growth velocity, lipids, and amino acids, she said.

ACOG’s recommendations are based mainly on retrospective data, Dr. Grantz said. Only two randomized controlled trials have investigated the timing of delivery in the context of diabetes, and both focused on cesarean section and were “generally underpowered to study neonatal outcomes,” she said.

The first RCT, published in 1993, enrolled 200 women with uncomplicated insulin-requiring diabetes (187 with GDM and 13 with pregestational diabetes) at 38 weeks of gestation, and compared active induction of labor within 5 days to expectant management. There was no significant difference in the cesarean delivery rate (the primary outcome), but rates of macrosomia and large for gestational age were higher in the expectant management group (27% vs. 15%, P = .05, and 23% vs. 10%, P = .02, respectively). Shoulder dystocia occurred in three deliveries, each of which was expectantly managed (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;169[3]:611-5). Notably, the study included “only women with excellent glucose control,” Dr. Grantz said.

The second RCT, published in 2017 by a group in Italy, enrolled 425 patients with GDM (diagnosed by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria) between week 38 and week 39 of gestation and similarly randomized them to induction of labor or expectant management. No difference in cesarean delivery was found (BJOG. 2017;124[4]:669-77). Induction of labor was associated with a higher risk of hyperbilirubinemia, and there was a trend toward a decreased risk of macrosomia, but again, the study was underpowered to detect differences in most outcomes, she said. (The study also was stopped early because of an inability to recruit, she noted.)

Dr. Grantz is currently recruiting for a randomized trial aimed at determining the optimal time between 37 and 39 weeks to initiate delivery — the time when neonatal morbidity and perinatal mortality risk is the lowest – for uncontrolled GDM-complicated pregnancies. The trial is designed to recruit up to 3,450 pregnant women with uncontrolled GDM and randomize the timing of their delivery (NCT05515744).

Those who are eligible for the study but do not consent to participate in randomization for delivery will be asked about chart review only (an estimated additional 3,000). The SPAN TIME study will also assess newborn development and behavior outcomes, as well as anthropometric measures, as secondary outcomes. An exploratory analysis will look for clinical, nonclinical or biochemical factors that could be helpful in optimizing delivery timing.

What Retrospective Studies Reveal

Factors that may influence the timing of delivery include the duration of neonatal exposure to hyperglycemia/hyperinsulinemia (pregestational vs. gestational diabetes), the level of diabetes control, and comorbidities (e.g. maternal renal disease or chronic hypertension). However, research “investigating how these factors influence morbidity and the timing of delivery is limited,” said Dr. Grantz.

Overall, it has been difficult through retrospective studies, she said, to investigate neonatal morbidity in diabetic pregnancies and tease apart the relative effects of diabetes as a precursor for early delivery and prematurity itself. Among the studies suggesting an independent risk of diabetes is a retrospective study focusing on neonatal respiratory morbidity — “one of the most common adverse outcomes associated with diabetes.”

The study, an analysis of the Consortium on Safe Labor study (an electronic medical record study of more than 220,000 singleton pregnancies), stratified morbidity by the probability of delivering at term (≥ 37 weeks). GDM and pregestational diabetes complicated 5.1% and 1.5% of the pregnancies, respectively, and were found to be associated with increased risks of neonatal respiratory morbidity compared to women without diabetes — regardless of the probability of delivering at term.

However, these associations were stronger with a higher probability of delivering at term, which suggests that the neonatal respiratory morbidity associated with diabetes is not fully explained by a greater propensity for prematurity (Am J Perinatol. 2017;34[11]:1160-8).

In addition, the rates of all neonatal respiratory morbidities and mortality were higher for pregestational diabetes compared with gestational diabetes, said Dr. Grantz, a senior author of the study. (Morbidities included neonatal intensive care unit admission, transient tachypnea of newborn, apnea, respiratory distress syndrome, mechanical ventilation, and stillbirth.)

The pathophysiology of diabetes and neonatal respiratory morbidity is “not fully known,” she said. It is believed that fetal hyperinsulinemia may cause delayed pulmonary maturation and there is evidence from animal studies that insulin decreases the incorporation of glucose and fatty acids into phospholipid phosphatidylglycerol. Indirect effects stem from the physiologic immaturity of earlier delivery and a higher cesarean delivery rate in pregnancies complicated by diabetes, Dr. Grantz said.

Among other retrospective studies was a population-based study from Canada (2004-2014), published in 2020, of large numbers of women with all types of diabetes and a comparison group of over 2.5 million without diabetes. For maternal morbidity/mortality, there were no significant differences by gestational age between iatrogenic delivery and expectant management among any form of diabetes. But for neonatal morbidity and mortality, the study found differences.

In women with gestational diabetes, iatrogenic delivery was associated with increased risk of neonatal morbidity/mortality at 36 and 37 weeks’ gestation and with decreased risk at weeks 38-40. Increased risk with iatrogenic delivery was also found for women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes at weeks 36 and 37 (Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99[3]:341-9).

Another retrospective study using California vital statistics (1997-2006) examined rates of stillbirth and infant death in women with GDM by gestational age at delivery (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206[4]:309.e1-e7). The 190,000-plus women with GDM had elevated risk of stillbirth at each gestational age compared to those without GDM, but “the [excess] risk for GDM was lowest at 38 weeks and again at 40 weeks,” Dr. Grantz said. The investigators concluded, she said, “that the risk of expectant management exceeded that of delivery at 38 weeks and beyond.”

Dr. Grantz reported no disclosures.

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA — The lack of data on optimal timing of delivery for pregnancies complicated by diabetes remains a major challenge in obstetrics — one with considerable implications given the high and rising prevalence of pregestational and gestational diabetes, Katherine Laughon Grantz, MD, MS, of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.

“While 39-40 weeks might be ideal for low-risk pregnancies, the optimal timing for pregnancies with complications [like diabetes] is unknown,” said Dr. Grantz, a senior investigator in the NICHD’s epidemiology branch.

The percentage of mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) increased from 6% in 2016 to 8% in 2021, according to the most recent data from the National Vital Statistics System of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:16). Meanwhile, the prevalence of prepregnancy obesity, which raises the risk of gestational and type 2 diabetes, was 29% in 2019; this represents an 11% increase from 2015 (NCHS Data Brief. 2020;392:1-8) and has occurred across all maternal ages, races, ethnic groups, and educational levels, she said.

“The reason clinicians deliver pregnancies with diabetes earlier is because there’s a decreased risk of macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, and stillbirth. And these risks need to be balanced with the increased risk of neonatal morbidity and mortality associated with earlier delivery,” said Dr. Grantz, who noted during her talk that delivery timing also appears to influence long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. “Yet despite [diabetes in pregnancy] being so common, there is complete uncertainty about when to deliver.”
 

ACOG Recommendations, Randomized Trials (New And Old)

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in a Committee Opinion on Medically Indicated Late-Preterm and Early-Term Deliveries, published in collaboration with the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, offers recommendations based on the type of diabetes and the level of control. For instance, the suggested delivery timing for well-controlled GDM is full term (39 0/7 to 40 6/7 weeks of gestation), while the recommendation for poorly controlled diabetes is individualized late preterm/early term management (Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138:e35-9).

In defining and evaluating control, she noted, “the clinical focus is on glucose, but there are likely other important parameters that are not taken into account ... which [could be] important when considering the timing of delivery.” Potentially important factors include estimated fetal weight, fetal growth velocity, lipids, and amino acids, she said.

ACOG’s recommendations are based mainly on retrospective data, Dr. Grantz said. Only two randomized controlled trials have investigated the timing of delivery in the context of diabetes, and both focused on cesarean section and were “generally underpowered to study neonatal outcomes,” she said.

The first RCT, published in 1993, enrolled 200 women with uncomplicated insulin-requiring diabetes (187 with GDM and 13 with pregestational diabetes) at 38 weeks of gestation, and compared active induction of labor within 5 days to expectant management. There was no significant difference in the cesarean delivery rate (the primary outcome), but rates of macrosomia and large for gestational age were higher in the expectant management group (27% vs. 15%, P = .05, and 23% vs. 10%, P = .02, respectively). Shoulder dystocia occurred in three deliveries, each of which was expectantly managed (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;169[3]:611-5). Notably, the study included “only women with excellent glucose control,” Dr. Grantz said.

The second RCT, published in 2017 by a group in Italy, enrolled 425 patients with GDM (diagnosed by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria) between week 38 and week 39 of gestation and similarly randomized them to induction of labor or expectant management. No difference in cesarean delivery was found (BJOG. 2017;124[4]:669-77). Induction of labor was associated with a higher risk of hyperbilirubinemia, and there was a trend toward a decreased risk of macrosomia, but again, the study was underpowered to detect differences in most outcomes, she said. (The study also was stopped early because of an inability to recruit, she noted.)

Dr. Grantz is currently recruiting for a randomized trial aimed at determining the optimal time between 37 and 39 weeks to initiate delivery — the time when neonatal morbidity and perinatal mortality risk is the lowest – for uncontrolled GDM-complicated pregnancies. The trial is designed to recruit up to 3,450 pregnant women with uncontrolled GDM and randomize the timing of their delivery (NCT05515744).

Those who are eligible for the study but do not consent to participate in randomization for delivery will be asked about chart review only (an estimated additional 3,000). The SPAN TIME study will also assess newborn development and behavior outcomes, as well as anthropometric measures, as secondary outcomes. An exploratory analysis will look for clinical, nonclinical or biochemical factors that could be helpful in optimizing delivery timing.

What Retrospective Studies Reveal

Factors that may influence the timing of delivery include the duration of neonatal exposure to hyperglycemia/hyperinsulinemia (pregestational vs. gestational diabetes), the level of diabetes control, and comorbidities (e.g. maternal renal disease or chronic hypertension). However, research “investigating how these factors influence morbidity and the timing of delivery is limited,” said Dr. Grantz.

Overall, it has been difficult through retrospective studies, she said, to investigate neonatal morbidity in diabetic pregnancies and tease apart the relative effects of diabetes as a precursor for early delivery and prematurity itself. Among the studies suggesting an independent risk of diabetes is a retrospective study focusing on neonatal respiratory morbidity — “one of the most common adverse outcomes associated with diabetes.”

The study, an analysis of the Consortium on Safe Labor study (an electronic medical record study of more than 220,000 singleton pregnancies), stratified morbidity by the probability of delivering at term (≥ 37 weeks). GDM and pregestational diabetes complicated 5.1% and 1.5% of the pregnancies, respectively, and were found to be associated with increased risks of neonatal respiratory morbidity compared to women without diabetes — regardless of the probability of delivering at term.

However, these associations were stronger with a higher probability of delivering at term, which suggests that the neonatal respiratory morbidity associated with diabetes is not fully explained by a greater propensity for prematurity (Am J Perinatol. 2017;34[11]:1160-8).

In addition, the rates of all neonatal respiratory morbidities and mortality were higher for pregestational diabetes compared with gestational diabetes, said Dr. Grantz, a senior author of the study. (Morbidities included neonatal intensive care unit admission, transient tachypnea of newborn, apnea, respiratory distress syndrome, mechanical ventilation, and stillbirth.)

The pathophysiology of diabetes and neonatal respiratory morbidity is “not fully known,” she said. It is believed that fetal hyperinsulinemia may cause delayed pulmonary maturation and there is evidence from animal studies that insulin decreases the incorporation of glucose and fatty acids into phospholipid phosphatidylglycerol. Indirect effects stem from the physiologic immaturity of earlier delivery and a higher cesarean delivery rate in pregnancies complicated by diabetes, Dr. Grantz said.

Among other retrospective studies was a population-based study from Canada (2004-2014), published in 2020, of large numbers of women with all types of diabetes and a comparison group of over 2.5 million without diabetes. For maternal morbidity/mortality, there were no significant differences by gestational age between iatrogenic delivery and expectant management among any form of diabetes. But for neonatal morbidity and mortality, the study found differences.

In women with gestational diabetes, iatrogenic delivery was associated with increased risk of neonatal morbidity/mortality at 36 and 37 weeks’ gestation and with decreased risk at weeks 38-40. Increased risk with iatrogenic delivery was also found for women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes at weeks 36 and 37 (Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99[3]:341-9).

Another retrospective study using California vital statistics (1997-2006) examined rates of stillbirth and infant death in women with GDM by gestational age at delivery (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206[4]:309.e1-e7). The 190,000-plus women with GDM had elevated risk of stillbirth at each gestational age compared to those without GDM, but “the [excess] risk for GDM was lowest at 38 weeks and again at 40 weeks,” Dr. Grantz said. The investigators concluded, she said, “that the risk of expectant management exceeded that of delivery at 38 weeks and beyond.”

Dr. Grantz reported no disclosures.

TOPLINE:

Routine clinical examination detects only 2.2% of second breast cancers during 10-year follow-up in women undergoing posttreatment surveillance after ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

METHODOLOGY:

• National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend DCIS surveillance with a physical exam every 6-12 months for 5 years and then annually with a mammogram every 12 months. Research, however, suggested clinical breast exams only detect 15% of second breast cancers.
• A retrospective cohort study of 1550 female members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California diagnosed with unilateral DCIS between January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2011, who were followed until 2021.
• Patients who developed a second breast cancer within 10 years of follow-up were identified from the electronic health records. The detection methods were categorized into three groups: Patient-detected, physician-detected, and imaging-detected.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up, 11.5% of women developed a second breast cancer with a median time to diagnosis of 57 months. Among patients with second breast cancers, 43.0% were ipsilateral, 54.8% were contralateral, and 2.2% presented with distant metastases.
• Overall, patients had a median of five mammograms between years 1 and 6 of surveillance and a median of seven clinic visits with most providers completing a clinical examination during the visit.
• Second breast cancers were detected through imaging in 74.3% of cases compared with 20.1% detected by patients and only 2.2% detected by physicians during physical exams. The remaining 3.4% were detected incidentally from plastic surgery procedures unrelated to oncologic surveillance.
• Mammogram detected 99.2% of cases (132 of 133 cases) identified by imaging.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight the importance of mammogram screening and patient education regarding self-detection and can inform future NCCN recommendations for DCIS survivorship care,” the authors concluded, adding that “decreasing the need for in-person breast examinations could allow for other effective methods of survivorship monitoring.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Bethany T. Waites of Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, California, was published online on December 28 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design may have introduced selection bias or confounding. The study’s follow-up period until 2021, including the initial 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, may have affected surveillance patterns.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Graduate Medical Education program. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Routine clinical examination detects only 2.2% of second breast cancers during 10-year follow-up in women undergoing posttreatment surveillance after ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

METHODOLOGY:

• National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend DCIS surveillance with a physical exam every 6-12 months for 5 years and then annually with a mammogram every 12 months. Research, however, suggested clinical breast exams only detect 15% of second breast cancers.
• A retrospective cohort study of 1550 female members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California diagnosed with unilateral DCIS between January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2011, who were followed until 2021.
• Patients who developed a second breast cancer within 10 years of follow-up were identified from the electronic health records. The detection methods were categorized into three groups: Patient-detected, physician-detected, and imaging-detected.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up, 11.5% of women developed a second breast cancer with a median time to diagnosis of 57 months. Among patients with second breast cancers, 43.0% were ipsilateral, 54.8% were contralateral, and 2.2% presented with distant metastases.
• Overall, patients had a median of five mammograms between years 1 and 6 of surveillance and a median of seven clinic visits with most providers completing a clinical examination during the visit.
• Second breast cancers were detected through imaging in 74.3% of cases compared with 20.1% detected by patients and only 2.2% detected by physicians during physical exams. The remaining 3.4% were detected incidentally from plastic surgery procedures unrelated to oncologic surveillance.
• Mammogram detected 99.2% of cases (132 of 133 cases) identified by imaging.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight the importance of mammogram screening and patient education regarding self-detection and can inform future NCCN recommendations for DCIS survivorship care,” the authors concluded, adding that “decreasing the need for in-person breast examinations could allow for other effective methods of survivorship monitoring.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Bethany T. Waites of Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, California, was published online on December 28 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design may have introduced selection bias or confounding. The study’s follow-up period until 2021, including the initial 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, may have affected surveillance patterns.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Graduate Medical Education program. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Routine clinical examination detects only 2.2% of second breast cancers during 10-year follow-up in women undergoing posttreatment surveillance after ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

METHODOLOGY:

• National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend DCIS surveillance with a physical exam every 6-12 months for 5 years and then annually with a mammogram every 12 months. Research, however, suggested clinical breast exams only detect 15% of second breast cancers.
• A retrospective cohort study of 1550 female members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California diagnosed with unilateral DCIS between January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2011, who were followed until 2021.
• Patients who developed a second breast cancer within 10 years of follow-up were identified from the electronic health records. The detection methods were categorized into three groups: Patient-detected, physician-detected, and imaging-detected.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up, 11.5% of women developed a second breast cancer with a median time to diagnosis of 57 months. Among patients with second breast cancers, 43.0% were ipsilateral, 54.8% were contralateral, and 2.2% presented with distant metastases.
• Overall, patients had a median of five mammograms between years 1 and 6 of surveillance and a median of seven clinic visits with most providers completing a clinical examination during the visit.
• Second breast cancers were detected through imaging in 74.3% of cases compared with 20.1% detected by patients and only 2.2% detected by physicians during physical exams. The remaining 3.4% were detected incidentally from plastic surgery procedures unrelated to oncologic surveillance.
• Mammogram detected 99.2% of cases (132 of 133 cases) identified by imaging.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight the importance of mammogram screening and patient education regarding self-detection and can inform future NCCN recommendations for DCIS survivorship care,” the authors concluded, adding that “decreasing the need for in-person breast examinations could allow for other effective methods of survivorship monitoring.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Bethany T. Waites of Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, California, was published online on December 28 in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design may have introduced selection bias or confounding. The study’s follow-up period until 2021, including the initial 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, may have affected surveillance patterns.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Graduate Medical Education program. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Delivered at 34 weeks’ gestation, Baby “Alex” had an enlarged liver and spleen on his initial newborn exam, poor tone, and a diffuse, peeling rash. Baby “Aaliyah” was born at term and appeared healthy. By 1 month of age, she was gaining weight poorly and developed copious nasal drainage and a salmon-colored rash on the soles of her feet.

The connection? Both babies were ultimately diagnosed with congenital syphilis. Infections in both babies could have been prevented if their mothers had been tested for syphilis and treated during pregnancy. Alex’s mom had no prenatal care. Aaliyah’s mom had tested negative for syphilis during her first trimester but had not been re-tested, despite sharing with her health care provider that she had a new sexual partner.

Alex and Aaliyah are representative of what Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry, MD, MPH, calls a “family tragedy.” Cases of congenital syphilis are rising rapidly in the United States, reaching a 30-year high in 2021.¹ Cases increased by 755% between 2012 and 2021, from 335 in 2012 to 2,865 in 2021. In 2022, cases rose again: 3,761 cases of congenital syphilis were reported, including 231 stillbirths and 51 infant deaths. Infants with congenital syphilis are at risk for lifelong complications, including deafness, blindness, and intellectual disability.

Most of these cases were preventable. Congenital syphilis is rare when pregnant people complete adequate treatment at least 30 days before delivery. In 2022, lack of testing or timely testing contributed to 36.8% of congenital syphilis cases. Nearly 40% of birth parents of infected babies received inadequate treatment during pregnancy, and 11.2% received no treatment or treatment was not documented.

Cases of congenital syphilis have increased in all demographic groups and all US Census Bureau regions, but racial and geographic disparities exist, suggesting ongoing barriers to care related to social determinants of health. In 2021, the highest rates of congenital syphilis were among babies born to individuals who were non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (384 cases per 100,000 live births), non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (192 cases per 100,000 live births), and non-Hispanic Black or African American (169 cases per 100,000 live births). Six states had rates of congenital syphilis that exceeded 160 cases per 100,000 population, including Arizona, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Oklahoma. That is more than twice the national rate of 77.9 cases/100,000.
 

Reducing the Risk

To reduce rates of congenital syphilis in all people, barriers to testing must be eliminated. The CDC recommends that all pregnant people be tested early in pregnancy, with repeat testing at 28 weeks and at delivery for those at increased risk for infection based on individual risk factors or residence in a high-prevalence community. Rapid syphilis testing and treatment during pregnancy is recommended in settings such as emergency departments, syringe service programs, prisons/jails, and maternal and child health programs to minimize missed opportunities for care.

While pediatric clinicians rarely care for pregnant patients, they also have an essential role to play in reducing the adverse health outcomes associated with congenital syphilis. No infant should be discharged from the newborn nursery without confirming that the birth parent was tested for syphilis at least once and was treated appropriately if positive. Appropriate treatment during pregnancy is a single dose of benzathine penicillin G for primary, secondary, or early latent syphilis. Late-latent syphilis or syphilis of unknown duration is treated with three doses of benzathine penicillin G spaced 7-9 days apart. If the doses are given further than 9 days apart, treatment is considered inadequate, and the series of doses must be restarted. Benzathine penicillin G remains in short supply in the United States, but is the only drug recommended to treat syphilis during pregnancy.

Collaboration between obstetrical and newborn care providers is essential. Those who care for newborns need easy access to birthing parents’ syphilis treatment results. As more health care facilities implement routine syphilis testing at delivery, rapid syphilis testing must be available to avoid prolonging newborn hospital stays.

Pediatricians need to maintain an index of suspicion for congenital syphilis, regardless of maternal history, because symptomatic congenital syphilis can mimic a variety of infectious and noninfectious conditions. Most infected infants look normal at birth. While the majority of cases of congenital syphilis are identified in the newborn period, a 2021 paper published in Pediatrics described 84 infants born between 2014 and 2018 who were diagnosed beyond a month of age.² These represented 2.2% of all infants born with congenital syphilis. Common symptoms included rash, snuffles, and hepatomegaly. Sixty-nine percent of infants who had long bone radiographs obtained had findings consistent with congenital syphilis. Typical imaging findings include periostitis and demineralization of the metaphysis and diaphysis of long bones, although fractures can also occur. Case reports describe infants who presented with fractures and were initially evaluated for nonaccidental trauma.³

Another critical approach is to treat syphilis in people of childbearing age before pregnancy occurs. The CDC recommends syphilis testing for sexually active females 18-44 years of age and living in communities with high rates of syphilis. County-specific specific rates of syphilis rates are available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/atlas/syphilis/. Point-of-care tests are now available for syphilis and may facilitate timely treatment. 

Additional resources describing syphilis testing and treatment are available from the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. (Also [email protected].)

References

1. McDonald R et al. Vital Signs: Missed Opportunities for Preventing Congenital Syphilis — United States, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Nov 17;72(46):1269-74. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7246e1. 

2. Kimball A et al. Congenital Syphilis Diagnosed Beyond the Neonatal Period in the United States: 2014-2018. Pediatrics. 2021 Sep;148(3):e2020049080. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-049080. 

3. Jacobs K et al. Congenital Syphilis Misdiagnosed as Suspected Nonaccidental Trauma. Pediatrics. 2019 Oct;144(4):e20191564. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1564. 

Delivered at 34 weeks’ gestation, Baby “Alex” had an enlarged liver and spleen on his initial newborn exam, poor tone, and a diffuse, peeling rash. Baby “Aaliyah” was born at term and appeared healthy. By 1 month of age, she was gaining weight poorly and developed copious nasal drainage and a salmon-colored rash on the soles of her feet.

The connection? Both babies were ultimately diagnosed with congenital syphilis. Infections in both babies could have been prevented if their mothers had been tested for syphilis and treated during pregnancy. Alex’s mom had no prenatal care. Aaliyah’s mom had tested negative for syphilis during her first trimester but had not been re-tested, despite sharing with her health care provider that she had a new sexual partner.

Alex and Aaliyah are representative of what Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry, MD, MPH, calls a “family tragedy.” Cases of congenital syphilis are rising rapidly in the United States, reaching a 30-year high in 2021.¹ Cases increased by 755% between 2012 and 2021, from 335 in 2012 to 2,865 in 2021. In 2022, cases rose again: 3,761 cases of congenital syphilis were reported, including 231 stillbirths and 51 infant deaths. Infants with congenital syphilis are at risk for lifelong complications, including deafness, blindness, and intellectual disability.

Most of these cases were preventable. Congenital syphilis is rare when pregnant people complete adequate treatment at least 30 days before delivery. In 2022, lack of testing or timely testing contributed to 36.8% of congenital syphilis cases. Nearly 40% of birth parents of infected babies received inadequate treatment during pregnancy, and 11.2% received no treatment or treatment was not documented.

Cases of congenital syphilis have increased in all demographic groups and all US Census Bureau regions, but racial and geographic disparities exist, suggesting ongoing barriers to care related to social determinants of health. In 2021, the highest rates of congenital syphilis were among babies born to individuals who were non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (384 cases per 100,000 live births), non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (192 cases per 100,000 live births), and non-Hispanic Black or African American (169 cases per 100,000 live births). Six states had rates of congenital syphilis that exceeded 160 cases per 100,000 population, including Arizona, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Oklahoma. That is more than twice the national rate of 77.9 cases/100,000.
 

Reducing the Risk

To reduce rates of congenital syphilis in all people, barriers to testing must be eliminated. The CDC recommends that all pregnant people be tested early in pregnancy, with repeat testing at 28 weeks and at delivery for those at increased risk for infection based on individual risk factors or residence in a high-prevalence community. Rapid syphilis testing and treatment during pregnancy is recommended in settings such as emergency departments, syringe service programs, prisons/jails, and maternal and child health programs to minimize missed opportunities for care.

While pediatric clinicians rarely care for pregnant patients, they also have an essential role to play in reducing the adverse health outcomes associated with congenital syphilis. No infant should be discharged from the newborn nursery without confirming that the birth parent was tested for syphilis at least once and was treated appropriately if positive. Appropriate treatment during pregnancy is a single dose of benzathine penicillin G for primary, secondary, or early latent syphilis. Late-latent syphilis or syphilis of unknown duration is treated with three doses of benzathine penicillin G spaced 7-9 days apart. If the doses are given further than 9 days apart, treatment is considered inadequate, and the series of doses must be restarted. Benzathine penicillin G remains in short supply in the United States, but is the only drug recommended to treat syphilis during pregnancy.

Collaboration between obstetrical and newborn care providers is essential. Those who care for newborns need easy access to birthing parents’ syphilis treatment results. As more health care facilities implement routine syphilis testing at delivery, rapid syphilis testing must be available to avoid prolonging newborn hospital stays.

Pediatricians need to maintain an index of suspicion for congenital syphilis, regardless of maternal history, because symptomatic congenital syphilis can mimic a variety of infectious and noninfectious conditions. Most infected infants look normal at birth. While the majority of cases of congenital syphilis are identified in the newborn period, a 2021 paper published in Pediatrics described 84 infants born between 2014 and 2018 who were diagnosed beyond a month of age.² These represented 2.2% of all infants born with congenital syphilis. Common symptoms included rash, snuffles, and hepatomegaly. Sixty-nine percent of infants who had long bone radiographs obtained had findings consistent with congenital syphilis. Typical imaging findings include periostitis and demineralization of the metaphysis and diaphysis of long bones, although fractures can also occur. Case reports describe infants who presented with fractures and were initially evaluated for nonaccidental trauma.³

Another critical approach is to treat syphilis in people of childbearing age before pregnancy occurs. The CDC recommends syphilis testing for sexually active females 18-44 years of age and living in communities with high rates of syphilis. County-specific specific rates of syphilis rates are available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/atlas/syphilis/. Point-of-care tests are now available for syphilis and may facilitate timely treatment. 

Additional resources describing syphilis testing and treatment are available from the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. (Also [email protected].)

References

1. McDonald R et al. Vital Signs: Missed Opportunities for Preventing Congenital Syphilis — United States, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Nov 17;72(46):1269-74. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7246e1. 

2. Kimball A et al. Congenital Syphilis Diagnosed Beyond the Neonatal Period in the United States: 2014-2018. Pediatrics. 2021 Sep;148(3):e2020049080. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-049080. 

3. Jacobs K et al. Congenital Syphilis Misdiagnosed as Suspected Nonaccidental Trauma. Pediatrics. 2019 Oct;144(4):e20191564. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1564. 

Delivered at 34 weeks’ gestation, Baby “Alex” had an enlarged liver and spleen on his initial newborn exam, poor tone, and a diffuse, peeling rash. Baby “Aaliyah” was born at term and appeared healthy. By 1 month of age, she was gaining weight poorly and developed copious nasal drainage and a salmon-colored rash on the soles of her feet.

The connection? Both babies were ultimately diagnosed with congenital syphilis. Infections in both babies could have been prevented if their mothers had been tested for syphilis and treated during pregnancy. Alex’s mom had no prenatal care. Aaliyah’s mom had tested negative for syphilis during her first trimester but had not been re-tested, despite sharing with her health care provider that she had a new sexual partner.

Alex and Aaliyah are representative of what Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry, MD, MPH, calls a “family tragedy.” Cases of congenital syphilis are rising rapidly in the United States, reaching a 30-year high in 2021.¹ Cases increased by 755% between 2012 and 2021, from 335 in 2012 to 2,865 in 2021. In 2022, cases rose again: 3,761 cases of congenital syphilis were reported, including 231 stillbirths and 51 infant deaths. Infants with congenital syphilis are at risk for lifelong complications, including deafness, blindness, and intellectual disability.

Most of these cases were preventable. Congenital syphilis is rare when pregnant people complete adequate treatment at least 30 days before delivery. In 2022, lack of testing or timely testing contributed to 36.8% of congenital syphilis cases. Nearly 40% of birth parents of infected babies received inadequate treatment during pregnancy, and 11.2% received no treatment or treatment was not documented.

Cases of congenital syphilis have increased in all demographic groups and all US Census Bureau regions, but racial and geographic disparities exist, suggesting ongoing barriers to care related to social determinants of health. In 2021, the highest rates of congenital syphilis were among babies born to individuals who were non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (384 cases per 100,000 live births), non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (192 cases per 100,000 live births), and non-Hispanic Black or African American (169 cases per 100,000 live births). Six states had rates of congenital syphilis that exceeded 160 cases per 100,000 population, including Arizona, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Oklahoma. That is more than twice the national rate of 77.9 cases/100,000.
 

Reducing the Risk

To reduce rates of congenital syphilis in all people, barriers to testing must be eliminated. The CDC recommends that all pregnant people be tested early in pregnancy, with repeat testing at 28 weeks and at delivery for those at increased risk for infection based on individual risk factors or residence in a high-prevalence community. Rapid syphilis testing and treatment during pregnancy is recommended in settings such as emergency departments, syringe service programs, prisons/jails, and maternal and child health programs to minimize missed opportunities for care.

While pediatric clinicians rarely care for pregnant patients, they also have an essential role to play in reducing the adverse health outcomes associated with congenital syphilis. No infant should be discharged from the newborn nursery without confirming that the birth parent was tested for syphilis at least once and was treated appropriately if positive. Appropriate treatment during pregnancy is a single dose of benzathine penicillin G for primary, secondary, or early latent syphilis. Late-latent syphilis or syphilis of unknown duration is treated with three doses of benzathine penicillin G spaced 7-9 days apart. If the doses are given further than 9 days apart, treatment is considered inadequate, and the series of doses must be restarted. Benzathine penicillin G remains in short supply in the United States, but is the only drug recommended to treat syphilis during pregnancy.

Collaboration between obstetrical and newborn care providers is essential. Those who care for newborns need easy access to birthing parents’ syphilis treatment results. As more health care facilities implement routine syphilis testing at delivery, rapid syphilis testing must be available to avoid prolonging newborn hospital stays.

Pediatricians need to maintain an index of suspicion for congenital syphilis, regardless of maternal history, because symptomatic congenital syphilis can mimic a variety of infectious and noninfectious conditions. Most infected infants look normal at birth. While the majority of cases of congenital syphilis are identified in the newborn period, a 2021 paper published in Pediatrics described 84 infants born between 2014 and 2018 who were diagnosed beyond a month of age.² These represented 2.2% of all infants born with congenital syphilis. Common symptoms included rash, snuffles, and hepatomegaly. Sixty-nine percent of infants who had long bone radiographs obtained had findings consistent with congenital syphilis. Typical imaging findings include periostitis and demineralization of the metaphysis and diaphysis of long bones, although fractures can also occur. Case reports describe infants who presented with fractures and were initially evaluated for nonaccidental trauma.³

Another critical approach is to treat syphilis in people of childbearing age before pregnancy occurs. The CDC recommends syphilis testing for sexually active females 18-44 years of age and living in communities with high rates of syphilis. County-specific specific rates of syphilis rates are available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/atlas/syphilis/. Point-of-care tests are now available for syphilis and may facilitate timely treatment. 

Additional resources describing syphilis testing and treatment are available from the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Dr. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta, and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. (Also [email protected].)

References

1. McDonald R et al. Vital Signs: Missed Opportunities for Preventing Congenital Syphilis — United States, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Nov 17;72(46):1269-74. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7246e1. 

2. Kimball A et al. Congenital Syphilis Diagnosed Beyond the Neonatal Period in the United States: 2014-2018. Pediatrics. 2021 Sep;148(3):e2020049080. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-049080. 

3. Jacobs K et al. Congenital Syphilis Misdiagnosed as Suspected Nonaccidental Trauma. Pediatrics. 2019 Oct;144(4):e20191564. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1564. 

TOPLINE:

Among women diagnosed with rosacea, the impact of pregnancy on the disease is unpredictable.

METHODOLOGY:

• Few data beyond case reports exist about the course of rosacea during pregnancy.
• Researchers conducted a telephone survey of 39 women with a diagnosis of rosacea in the electronic medical records prior to the onset of pregnancy who had been admitted to Oregon Health & Science University for labor and delivery from June 27, 2015, to June 27, 2020.
• Patient global assessment of clear (0), mild (1), moderate (2), or severe (3) rosacea was rated across five timepoints: 1-3 months preconception; first, second, and third trimesters; and 6 weeks postpartum.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean age of the survey participants was 35.5 years, the mean gestational age at delivery was 39.4 weeks, and most had singleton pregnancies.
• All but one study participant (97.4%) reported symptoms of erythematotelangiectatic rosacea, while 26 (67%) reported symptoms of papulopustular rosacea.
• Nearly half of the participants (19, 48.7%) said their rosacea worsened during pregnancy, 13 (33.3%) reported no change in rosacea severity during pregnancy, and 7 (17.9%) reported that their rosacea improved during pregnancy.
• Before conceiving, the mean rosacea severity score among participants was mild (1.10; 95% CI, 0.92-1.29) and did not change significantly over time, a reflection of individual variations. In addition, 83.3% of participants did not use prescription rosacea treatments prior to pregnancy, and 89.6% did not use them during pregnancy.

IN PRACTICE:

“Rosacea, like acne, lacks a predictable group effect, and instead, each individual may have a different response to the physiologic changes of pregnancy,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Genevieve Benedetti, MD, MPP, of the Department of Dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, led the research, published as a research letter in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size, single-center design, and overall prevalence of mild disease limit the ability to detect change.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among women diagnosed with rosacea, the impact of pregnancy on the disease is unpredictable.

METHODOLOGY:

• Few data beyond case reports exist about the course of rosacea during pregnancy.
• Researchers conducted a telephone survey of 39 women with a diagnosis of rosacea in the electronic medical records prior to the onset of pregnancy who had been admitted to Oregon Health & Science University for labor and delivery from June 27, 2015, to June 27, 2020.
• Patient global assessment of clear (0), mild (1), moderate (2), or severe (3) rosacea was rated across five timepoints: 1-3 months preconception; first, second, and third trimesters; and 6 weeks postpartum.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean age of the survey participants was 35.5 years, the mean gestational age at delivery was 39.4 weeks, and most had singleton pregnancies.
• All but one study participant (97.4%) reported symptoms of erythematotelangiectatic rosacea, while 26 (67%) reported symptoms of papulopustular rosacea.
• Nearly half of the participants (19, 48.7%) said their rosacea worsened during pregnancy, 13 (33.3%) reported no change in rosacea severity during pregnancy, and 7 (17.9%) reported that their rosacea improved during pregnancy.
• Before conceiving, the mean rosacea severity score among participants was mild (1.10; 95% CI, 0.92-1.29) and did not change significantly over time, a reflection of individual variations. In addition, 83.3% of participants did not use prescription rosacea treatments prior to pregnancy, and 89.6% did not use them during pregnancy.

IN PRACTICE:

“Rosacea, like acne, lacks a predictable group effect, and instead, each individual may have a different response to the physiologic changes of pregnancy,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Genevieve Benedetti, MD, MPP, of the Department of Dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, led the research, published as a research letter in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size, single-center design, and overall prevalence of mild disease limit the ability to detect change.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among women diagnosed with rosacea, the impact of pregnancy on the disease is unpredictable.

METHODOLOGY:

• Few data beyond case reports exist about the course of rosacea during pregnancy.
• Researchers conducted a telephone survey of 39 women with a diagnosis of rosacea in the electronic medical records prior to the onset of pregnancy who had been admitted to Oregon Health & Science University for labor and delivery from June 27, 2015, to June 27, 2020.
• Patient global assessment of clear (0), mild (1), moderate (2), or severe (3) rosacea was rated across five timepoints: 1-3 months preconception; first, second, and third trimesters; and 6 weeks postpartum.

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean age of the survey participants was 35.5 years, the mean gestational age at delivery was 39.4 weeks, and most had singleton pregnancies.
• All but one study participant (97.4%) reported symptoms of erythematotelangiectatic rosacea, while 26 (67%) reported symptoms of papulopustular rosacea.
• Nearly half of the participants (19, 48.7%) said their rosacea worsened during pregnancy, 13 (33.3%) reported no change in rosacea severity during pregnancy, and 7 (17.9%) reported that their rosacea improved during pregnancy.
• Before conceiving, the mean rosacea severity score among participants was mild (1.10; 95% CI, 0.92-1.29) and did not change significantly over time, a reflection of individual variations. In addition, 83.3% of participants did not use prescription rosacea treatments prior to pregnancy, and 89.6% did not use them during pregnancy.

IN PRACTICE:

“Rosacea, like acne, lacks a predictable group effect, and instead, each individual may have a different response to the physiologic changes of pregnancy,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Genevieve Benedetti, MD, MPP, of the Department of Dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, led the research, published as a research letter in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size, single-center design, and overall prevalence of mild disease limit the ability to detect change.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.

Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”

But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?

Right?

It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.

I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.

Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?

And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.

Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.

Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success. We have the ability to keep people alive today who would not have survived 15 years ago. We have better treatments for metastatic cancer, less-invasive therapies for heart disease, better protocolized ICU care.

Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?

There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.

Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”

But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?

Right?

It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.

I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.

Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?

And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.

Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.

Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success. We have the ability to keep people alive today who would not have survived 15 years ago. We have better treatments for metastatic cancer, less-invasive therapies for heart disease, better protocolized ICU care.

Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?

There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.

Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”

But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?

Right?

It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.

I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.

Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?

And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.

Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.

Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success. We have the ability to keep people alive today who would not have survived 15 years ago. We have better treatments for metastatic cancer, less-invasive therapies for heart disease, better protocolized ICU care.

Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?

There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.