Obstetrics

MENSTRUAL PAIN RELIEF THROUGH MICRO-PULSES

Livia, by iPulse Medical Ltd, is a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved, drug-free option to treat menstrual pain through the transmission of electrical pulses. Electrodes are placed on the body at the source of menstrual pain and send a frequency to the nerves to reduce pain. Livia was designed based on the principles of the “gate control” theory of pain, says iPulse Medical. When the nerves are stimulated by the device’s electrodes, the nerve gate is closed, preventing pain signals from being received or felt in the brain.

The device can be worn in public or at home and allows the user to adjust the frequency of the electrical signal to correspond with her pain intensity. According to iPulse Medical, there are no adverse effects and the user will not build up a tolerance; however, the device should not be worn if the user has a pacemaker or is undergoing fertility treatment.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://mylivia.com/

EXPAREL FOR CESAREAN DELIVERY

Pacira BioSciences an-nounced completion of their Phase 4 study of Exparel (bupivacaine lipsome injectable suspension), a local analgesic given to patients undergoing planned cesarean delivery (CD), aimed at reducing postsurgical pain and total opioid consumption through the first 72 hours postsurgery. Exparel is administered through transversus abdominis plane field block.

Pacira’s multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of 186 patients showed that those receiving Exparel plus bupivacaine HCl had a 52% reduction in total opioid consumption and significantly lower pain scores through the first 72 hours after CD, compared with those receiving only bupivacaine HCl. The most common adverse effects are itching and nausea. Exparel should not be used for patients under the age of 18 and should be used cautiously in patients with hepatic disease.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.exparel.com/

M GENITALIUM ASSAY DETECTS THE STI

Hologic’s Aptima^® Mycoplasma genitalium assay is the first FDA-cleared diagnostic test for this sexually transmitted infection (STI), which has been identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as an emerging public health threat. The assay is an in vitro nucleic acid amplification test that can be used to verify swab or urine samples from women and men. In published studies, the ribosomal RNA-based assay displayed greater sensitivity than lab-developed or CE-marked DNA-based tests. Early detection is important, Hologic asserts, because M genitalium is increasing in prevalence among higher-risk populations; however, it is not well known and often misdiagnosed, leading to incorrect treatment as well as risk for transmission and recurrence.

Hologic cites several studies that have shown M genitalium can be asymptomatic; however, it also can be associated with nongonococcal urethritis in men and cervicitis in women, as well as increased risk for pelvic inflammatory disease, preterm birth, spontaneous abortion, and infertility. A high percentage of infected people have an antibiotic-resistant strain, demonstrating a need for early detection and screening.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.hologic.com

NEW ART OPTION

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.ferringusa.com

MENSTRUAL PAIN RELIEF THROUGH MICRO-PULSES

Livia, by iPulse Medical Ltd, is a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved, drug-free option to treat menstrual pain through the transmission of electrical pulses. Electrodes are placed on the body at the source of menstrual pain and send a frequency to the nerves to reduce pain. Livia was designed based on the principles of the “gate control” theory of pain, says iPulse Medical. When the nerves are stimulated by the device’s electrodes, the nerve gate is closed, preventing pain signals from being received or felt in the brain.

The device can be worn in public or at home and allows the user to adjust the frequency of the electrical signal to correspond with her pain intensity. According to iPulse Medical, there are no adverse effects and the user will not build up a tolerance; however, the device should not be worn if the user has a pacemaker or is undergoing fertility treatment.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://mylivia.com/

EXPAREL FOR CESAREAN DELIVERY

Pacira BioSciences an-nounced completion of their Phase 4 study of Exparel (bupivacaine lipsome injectable suspension), a local analgesic given to patients undergoing planned cesarean delivery (CD), aimed at reducing postsurgical pain and total opioid consumption through the first 72 hours postsurgery. Exparel is administered through transversus abdominis plane field block.

Pacira’s multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of 186 patients showed that those receiving Exparel plus bupivacaine HCl had a 52% reduction in total opioid consumption and significantly lower pain scores through the first 72 hours after CD, compared with those receiving only bupivacaine HCl. The most common adverse effects are itching and nausea. Exparel should not be used for patients under the age of 18 and should be used cautiously in patients with hepatic disease.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.exparel.com/

M GENITALIUM ASSAY DETECTS THE STI

Hologic’s Aptima^® Mycoplasma genitalium assay is the first FDA-cleared diagnostic test for this sexually transmitted infection (STI), which has been identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as an emerging public health threat. The assay is an in vitro nucleic acid amplification test that can be used to verify swab or urine samples from women and men. In published studies, the ribosomal RNA-based assay displayed greater sensitivity than lab-developed or CE-marked DNA-based tests. Early detection is important, Hologic asserts, because M genitalium is increasing in prevalence among higher-risk populations; however, it is not well known and often misdiagnosed, leading to incorrect treatment as well as risk for transmission and recurrence.

Hologic cites several studies that have shown M genitalium can be asymptomatic; however, it also can be associated with nongonococcal urethritis in men and cervicitis in women, as well as increased risk for pelvic inflammatory disease, preterm birth, spontaneous abortion, and infertility. A high percentage of infected people have an antibiotic-resistant strain, demonstrating a need for early detection and screening.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.hologic.com

NEW ART OPTION

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.ferringusa.com

MENSTRUAL PAIN RELIEF THROUGH MICRO-PULSES

Livia, by iPulse Medical Ltd, is a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved, drug-free option to treat menstrual pain through the transmission of electrical pulses. Electrodes are placed on the body at the source of menstrual pain and send a frequency to the nerves to reduce pain. Livia was designed based on the principles of the “gate control” theory of pain, says iPulse Medical. When the nerves are stimulated by the device’s electrodes, the nerve gate is closed, preventing pain signals from being received or felt in the brain.

The device can be worn in public or at home and allows the user to adjust the frequency of the electrical signal to correspond with her pain intensity. According to iPulse Medical, there are no adverse effects and the user will not build up a tolerance; however, the device should not be worn if the user has a pacemaker or is undergoing fertility treatment.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://mylivia.com/

EXPAREL FOR CESAREAN DELIVERY

Pacira BioSciences an-nounced completion of their Phase 4 study of Exparel (bupivacaine lipsome injectable suspension), a local analgesic given to patients undergoing planned cesarean delivery (CD), aimed at reducing postsurgical pain and total opioid consumption through the first 72 hours postsurgery. Exparel is administered through transversus abdominis plane field block.

Pacira’s multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of 186 patients showed that those receiving Exparel plus bupivacaine HCl had a 52% reduction in total opioid consumption and significantly lower pain scores through the first 72 hours after CD, compared with those receiving only bupivacaine HCl. The most common adverse effects are itching and nausea. Exparel should not be used for patients under the age of 18 and should be used cautiously in patients with hepatic disease.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.exparel.com/

M GENITALIUM ASSAY DETECTS THE STI

Hologic’s Aptima^® Mycoplasma genitalium assay is the first FDA-cleared diagnostic test for this sexually transmitted infection (STI), which has been identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as an emerging public health threat. The assay is an in vitro nucleic acid amplification test that can be used to verify swab or urine samples from women and men. In published studies, the ribosomal RNA-based assay displayed greater sensitivity than lab-developed or CE-marked DNA-based tests. Early detection is important, Hologic asserts, because M genitalium is increasing in prevalence among higher-risk populations; however, it is not well known and often misdiagnosed, leading to incorrect treatment as well as risk for transmission and recurrence.

Hologic cites several studies that have shown M genitalium can be asymptomatic; however, it also can be associated with nongonococcal urethritis in men and cervicitis in women, as well as increased risk for pelvic inflammatory disease, preterm birth, spontaneous abortion, and infertility. A high percentage of infected people have an antibiotic-resistant strain, demonstrating a need for early detection and screening.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.hologic.com

NEW ART OPTION

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.ferringusa.com

Children born to mothers with high blood levels of lead have an increased risk of being overweight or obese, particularly if their mothers are also overweight, according to new research.

Creatas Images

Adequate maternal plasma levels of folate, however, mitigated this risk.

“When considered simultaneously, maternal lead exposure, rather than early childhood lead exposure, contributed to overweight/obesity risk in a dose-response fashion across multiple developmental stages (preschool age, school age and early adolescence) and amplified intergenerational overweight/obesity risk (additively with maternal overweight/obesity),” Guoying Wang, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and associates, reported in JAMA Network Open.

“These findings support the hypothesis that the obesity epidemic could be related to environmental chemical exposures in utero and raise the possibility that optimal maternal folate supplementation may help counteract the adverse effects of environmental lead exposure,” the authors wrote.

The prospective urban, low-income cohort study, which ran from 2002 to 2013, involved 1,442 mother-child pairs who joined the study when the children were born and attended follow-up visits at Boston Medical Center. The mean age of the mothers was 29 years, and the children were, on average, 8 years old at follow-up. Half the children were male; 67% of mothers were black, and 20% were Latina.

The researchers collected maternal blood samples within 24-72 hours after birth to measure red blood cell lead levels and plasma folate levels. Children’s whole-blood lead levels were measured during the first lead screening of their well child visits, at a median 10 months of age. Researchers tracked children’s body mass index Z-score and defined overweight/obesity as exceeding the 85th national percentile for their age and sex.

Detectable lead was present in all the mothers’ blood samples. The median maternal red blood cell lead level was 2.5 mcg/dL, although black mothers tended to have higher lead exposure than that of other racial groups. Median maternal plasma folate level was 32 nmol/L. Children’s blood lead levels were a median 1.4 mcg/dL, and their median BMI Z-score was 0.78.

Children whose mothers had red blood cell lead levels of 5.0 mcg/dL or greater (16%) had 65% greater odds of being overweight or obese compared with children whose mothers’ lead level was less than 2 mcg/dL, after adjustment for maternal education, race/ethnicity, smoking status, parity, diabetes, hypertensive disorder, preterm birth, fetal growth, and breastfeeding status (odds ratio [OR], 1.65; 95% confidence internal [CI], 1.18-2.32). Only 5.2% of children had whole-blood lead levels of 5 mcg/dL or greater.

“Mothers with the highest red blood cell lead levels were older and multiparous, were more likely to be black and nonsmokers, had lower plasma folate levels and were more likely to have prepregnancy overweight/obesity and diabetes,” the authors reported.

The dose-response association did not lose significance when the researchers adjusted for children’s blood lead levels, maternal age, cesarean delivery, term births only, and black race. Nor did it change in a subset of children when the researchers adjusted for children’s physical activity.

The strength of the association increased when mothers also had a BMI greater than the average/healthy range. Children were more than four times more likely to be overweight or obese if their mothers were overweight or obese and had lead levels greater than 5.0 mcg/dL, compared with nonoverweight mothers with levels below 2 mcg/dL (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 2.64-6.82).

Among children whose mothers were overweight/obese and had high blood lead levels, however, high folate levels appeared protective against obesity. These children had a 41% lower risk of being overweight or obese, compared with others in their group, if their mothers had plasma folate levels of at least 20 nmol/L (OR, 0.59 CI, 0.36-0.95; P = .03).

According to an invited commentary, “approximately 140,000 new chemicals and pesticides have appeared since 1950,” with “universal human exposure to approximately 5,000 of those,” wrote Marco Sanchez-Guerra, PhD, of the National Institute of Perinatology in Mexico City, and coauthors Andres Cardenas, PhD, of the University of California, Berkeley, and Citlalli Osorio-Yáñez, PhD, of the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City. Yet fewer than half of those chemicals have been tested for safety or toxic effect, the editorialists wrote, and scientists know little of their potential reproductive harm.

Dr. Sanchez-Guerra, Dr. Cardenas, and Dr. Osorio-Yáñez agreed with the study authors that elevated lead exposures, especially from gasoline before lead was removed in the United States in 1975, may partly explain the current epidemic of obesity.

“Identifying preventable prenatal causes of obesity is a cornerstone in the fight against the obesity epidemic,” the editorialists said. While most recommendations center on changes to diet and physical activity, environmental factors during pregnancy could be involved in childhood obesity as well.

“The study by Wang et al. opens the door to new questions about whether adequate folate intake might modify the adverse effects of other chemical exposures,” they continued, noting other research suggesting a protective effect from folate against health effects of air pollution exposure. “These efforts could yield substantial public health benefits and represent novel tools in fighting the obesity epidemic,” they concluded.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Neither the study authors nor the editorialists had industry financial disclosures.

SOURCES: Wang G et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(10):e1912343. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.12343; Sanchez-Guerra M et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(10):e1912334. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.12334.

Children born to mothers with high blood levels of lead have an increased risk of being overweight or obese, particularly if their mothers are also overweight, according to new research.

Creatas Images

Adequate maternal plasma levels of folate, however, mitigated this risk.

“When considered simultaneously, maternal lead exposure, rather than early childhood lead exposure, contributed to overweight/obesity risk in a dose-response fashion across multiple developmental stages (preschool age, school age and early adolescence) and amplified intergenerational overweight/obesity risk (additively with maternal overweight/obesity),” Guoying Wang, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and associates, reported in JAMA Network Open.

“These findings support the hypothesis that the obesity epidemic could be related to environmental chemical exposures in utero and raise the possibility that optimal maternal folate supplementation may help counteract the adverse effects of environmental lead exposure,” the authors wrote.

The prospective urban, low-income cohort study, which ran from 2002 to 2013, involved 1,442 mother-child pairs who joined the study when the children were born and attended follow-up visits at Boston Medical Center. The mean age of the mothers was 29 years, and the children were, on average, 8 years old at follow-up. Half the children were male; 67% of mothers were black, and 20% were Latina.

The researchers collected maternal blood samples within 24-72 hours after birth to measure red blood cell lead levels and plasma folate levels. Children’s whole-blood lead levels were measured during the first lead screening of their well child visits, at a median 10 months of age. Researchers tracked children’s body mass index Z-score and defined overweight/obesity as exceeding the 85th national percentile for their age and sex.

Detectable lead was present in all the mothers’ blood samples. The median maternal red blood cell lead level was 2.5 mcg/dL, although black mothers tended to have higher lead exposure than that of other racial groups. Median maternal plasma folate level was 32 nmol/L. Children’s blood lead levels were a median 1.4 mcg/dL, and their median BMI Z-score was 0.78.

Children whose mothers had red blood cell lead levels of 5.0 mcg/dL or greater (16%) had 65% greater odds of being overweight or obese compared with children whose mothers’ lead level was less than 2 mcg/dL, after adjustment for maternal education, race/ethnicity, smoking status, parity, diabetes, hypertensive disorder, preterm birth, fetal growth, and breastfeeding status (odds ratio [OR], 1.65; 95% confidence internal [CI], 1.18-2.32). Only 5.2% of children had whole-blood lead levels of 5 mcg/dL or greater.

“Mothers with the highest red blood cell lead levels were older and multiparous, were more likely to be black and nonsmokers, had lower plasma folate levels and were more likely to have prepregnancy overweight/obesity and diabetes,” the authors reported.

The dose-response association did not lose significance when the researchers adjusted for children’s blood lead levels, maternal age, cesarean delivery, term births only, and black race. Nor did it change in a subset of children when the researchers adjusted for children’s physical activity.

The strength of the association increased when mothers also had a BMI greater than the average/healthy range. Children were more than four times more likely to be overweight or obese if their mothers were overweight or obese and had lead levels greater than 5.0 mcg/dL, compared with nonoverweight mothers with levels below 2 mcg/dL (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 2.64-6.82).

Among children whose mothers were overweight/obese and had high blood lead levels, however, high folate levels appeared protective against obesity. These children had a 41% lower risk of being overweight or obese, compared with others in their group, if their mothers had plasma folate levels of at least 20 nmol/L (OR, 0.59 CI, 0.36-0.95; P = .03).

According to an invited commentary, “approximately 140,000 new chemicals and pesticides have appeared since 1950,” with “universal human exposure to approximately 5,000 of those,” wrote Marco Sanchez-Guerra, PhD, of the National Institute of Perinatology in Mexico City, and coauthors Andres Cardenas, PhD, of the University of California, Berkeley, and Citlalli Osorio-Yáñez, PhD, of the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City. Yet fewer than half of those chemicals have been tested for safety or toxic effect, the editorialists wrote, and scientists know little of their potential reproductive harm.

Dr. Sanchez-Guerra, Dr. Cardenas, and Dr. Osorio-Yáñez agreed with the study authors that elevated lead exposures, especially from gasoline before lead was removed in the United States in 1975, may partly explain the current epidemic of obesity.

“Identifying preventable prenatal causes of obesity is a cornerstone in the fight against the obesity epidemic,” the editorialists said. While most recommendations center on changes to diet and physical activity, environmental factors during pregnancy could be involved in childhood obesity as well.

“The study by Wang et al. opens the door to new questions about whether adequate folate intake might modify the adverse effects of other chemical exposures,” they continued, noting other research suggesting a protective effect from folate against health effects of air pollution exposure. “These efforts could yield substantial public health benefits and represent novel tools in fighting the obesity epidemic,” they concluded.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Neither the study authors nor the editorialists had industry financial disclosures.

SOURCES: Wang G et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(10):e1912343. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.12343; Sanchez-Guerra M et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(10):e1912334. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.12334.

Children born to mothers with high blood levels of lead have an increased risk of being overweight or obese, particularly if their mothers are also overweight, according to new research.

Creatas Images

Adequate maternal plasma levels of folate, however, mitigated this risk.

“When considered simultaneously, maternal lead exposure, rather than early childhood lead exposure, contributed to overweight/obesity risk in a dose-response fashion across multiple developmental stages (preschool age, school age and early adolescence) and amplified intergenerational overweight/obesity risk (additively with maternal overweight/obesity),” Guoying Wang, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and associates, reported in JAMA Network Open.

“These findings support the hypothesis that the obesity epidemic could be related to environmental chemical exposures in utero and raise the possibility that optimal maternal folate supplementation may help counteract the adverse effects of environmental lead exposure,” the authors wrote.

The prospective urban, low-income cohort study, which ran from 2002 to 2013, involved 1,442 mother-child pairs who joined the study when the children were born and attended follow-up visits at Boston Medical Center. The mean age of the mothers was 29 years, and the children were, on average, 8 years old at follow-up. Half the children were male; 67% of mothers were black, and 20% were Latina.

The researchers collected maternal blood samples within 24-72 hours after birth to measure red blood cell lead levels and plasma folate levels. Children’s whole-blood lead levels were measured during the first lead screening of their well child visits, at a median 10 months of age. Researchers tracked children’s body mass index Z-score and defined overweight/obesity as exceeding the 85th national percentile for their age and sex.

Detectable lead was present in all the mothers’ blood samples. The median maternal red blood cell lead level was 2.5 mcg/dL, although black mothers tended to have higher lead exposure than that of other racial groups. Median maternal plasma folate level was 32 nmol/L. Children’s blood lead levels were a median 1.4 mcg/dL, and their median BMI Z-score was 0.78.

Children whose mothers had red blood cell lead levels of 5.0 mcg/dL or greater (16%) had 65% greater odds of being overweight or obese compared with children whose mothers’ lead level was less than 2 mcg/dL, after adjustment for maternal education, race/ethnicity, smoking status, parity, diabetes, hypertensive disorder, preterm birth, fetal growth, and breastfeeding status (odds ratio [OR], 1.65; 95% confidence internal [CI], 1.18-2.32). Only 5.2% of children had whole-blood lead levels of 5 mcg/dL or greater.

“Mothers with the highest red blood cell lead levels were older and multiparous, were more likely to be black and nonsmokers, had lower plasma folate levels and were more likely to have prepregnancy overweight/obesity and diabetes,” the authors reported.

The dose-response association did not lose significance when the researchers adjusted for children’s blood lead levels, maternal age, cesarean delivery, term births only, and black race. Nor did it change in a subset of children when the researchers adjusted for children’s physical activity.

The strength of the association increased when mothers also had a BMI greater than the average/healthy range. Children were more than four times more likely to be overweight or obese if their mothers were overweight or obese and had lead levels greater than 5.0 mcg/dL, compared with nonoverweight mothers with levels below 2 mcg/dL (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 2.64-6.82).

Among children whose mothers were overweight/obese and had high blood lead levels, however, high folate levels appeared protective against obesity. These children had a 41% lower risk of being overweight or obese, compared with others in their group, if their mothers had plasma folate levels of at least 20 nmol/L (OR, 0.59 CI, 0.36-0.95; P = .03).

According to an invited commentary, “approximately 140,000 new chemicals and pesticides have appeared since 1950,” with “universal human exposure to approximately 5,000 of those,” wrote Marco Sanchez-Guerra, PhD, of the National Institute of Perinatology in Mexico City, and coauthors Andres Cardenas, PhD, of the University of California, Berkeley, and Citlalli Osorio-Yáñez, PhD, of the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City. Yet fewer than half of those chemicals have been tested for safety or toxic effect, the editorialists wrote, and scientists know little of their potential reproductive harm.

Dr. Sanchez-Guerra, Dr. Cardenas, and Dr. Osorio-Yáñez agreed with the study authors that elevated lead exposures, especially from gasoline before lead was removed in the United States in 1975, may partly explain the current epidemic of obesity.

“Identifying preventable prenatal causes of obesity is a cornerstone in the fight against the obesity epidemic,” the editorialists said. While most recommendations center on changes to diet and physical activity, environmental factors during pregnancy could be involved in childhood obesity as well.

“The study by Wang et al. opens the door to new questions about whether adequate folate intake might modify the adverse effects of other chemical exposures,” they continued, noting other research suggesting a protective effect from folate against health effects of air pollution exposure. “These efforts could yield substantial public health benefits and represent novel tools in fighting the obesity epidemic,” they concluded.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Neither the study authors nor the editorialists had industry financial disclosures.

SOURCES: Wang G et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(10):e1912343. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.12343; Sanchez-Guerra M et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(10):e1912334. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.12334.

De Vivo V, Carbone L, Saccone G, et al. Early amniotomy after cervical ripening for induction of labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.07.049.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Induction of labor has doubled over the past 2 decades, with almost 25% of parturients currently undergoing induction in the United States.¹ Labor induction at term is associated with perinatal outcomes similar to those with spontaneous labor, without an increase in the CD rate.^1-3 Although numerous methods for cervical ripening have been evaluated, the safest and most effective method has yet to be determined.²

Amniotomy—or artificial rupture of membranes (AROM)—has long been used as a technique for labor induction and for augmentation in women in spontaneous labor. Purported benefits include an increased responsiveness to exogenous oxytocin, decreased interval to delivery, and an increased likelihood of spontaneous vaginal delivery. Risks of amniotomy include injury to the fetus or surrounding tissues, bleeding, nonreassuring fetal testing, cord prolapse, and prolonged rupture of membranes (defined as longer than 18 hours), which is a risk factor for intra-amniotic infection.

The optimal timing of amniotomy is not known. The recent study by De Vivo and colleagues was designed to better understand the risk/benefit ratio of early amniotomy after cervical ripening in women undergoing induction of labor.

Details of the study

The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 1,273 women in 4 randomized controlled trials to determine the effectiveness of routine early amniotomy versus late amniotomy/spontaneous rupture of membranes after cervical ripening (with either a Foley catheter or prostaglandins) in women with a singleton vertex fetus undergoing induction of labor in the term or late preterm period.

Early amniotomy was defined as AROM “soon after cervical ripening” (cases); late amniotomy was defined as AROM after the active phase of labor or spontaneous rupture of membranes (controls).

The primary outcome was the incidence of CD. Secondary outcomes included the overall length of labor, latency from induction to delivery, and neonatal morbidity (a composite of birth weight, Apgar scores, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, neonatal sepsis, need for resuscitation, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit).

Continue to: Findings...

Findings. Women randomly assigned to early amniotomy had a similar risk of CD compared with controls (31.1% vs 30.9% [relative risk (RR), 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71–1.56]) and a shorter interval from induction to delivery of about 5 hours (mean difference, -4.95 hours [95% CI, -8.12 to -1.78]).

There was no difference in any of the secondary outcome measures, although the number of events was small. Specifically, there was no significant difference in rates of chorioamnionitis between the early and late amniotomy cohorts (7.3% vs 4.8% [RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.95–2.28]).

Study strengths and limitations

This is the first systematic review to evaluate early versus late amniotomy after cervical ripening for induction of labor. “Systematic review and meta-analysis” is not synonymous with a review of the literature. It has its own methodology and is regarded as original research. A strength of this study is that it was performed by a highly credible team who followed established Cochrane and PRISMA methodological and reporting guidelines.

Study weaknesses include the fact that the meta-analysis contained a relatively small number of trials and study participants. It was significantly underpowered to address issues related to neonatal outcome. The 4 trials included were highly variable in terms of maternal parity and indications for labor induction and CD. The definition of “early amniotomy” was inconsistent, and the overall rate of CD varied greatly among the studies (7.9%–41.1%). Multiple pregnancies were excluded. Taken together, these findings may have limited generalizability.

De Vivo V, Carbone L, Saccone G, et al. Early amniotomy after cervical ripening for induction of labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.07.049.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Induction of labor has doubled over the past 2 decades, with almost 25% of parturients currently undergoing induction in the United States.¹ Labor induction at term is associated with perinatal outcomes similar to those with spontaneous labor, without an increase in the CD rate.^1-3 Although numerous methods for cervical ripening have been evaluated, the safest and most effective method has yet to be determined.²

Amniotomy—or artificial rupture of membranes (AROM)—has long been used as a technique for labor induction and for augmentation in women in spontaneous labor. Purported benefits include an increased responsiveness to exogenous oxytocin, decreased interval to delivery, and an increased likelihood of spontaneous vaginal delivery. Risks of amniotomy include injury to the fetus or surrounding tissues, bleeding, nonreassuring fetal testing, cord prolapse, and prolonged rupture of membranes (defined as longer than 18 hours), which is a risk factor for intra-amniotic infection.

The optimal timing of amniotomy is not known. The recent study by De Vivo and colleagues was designed to better understand the risk/benefit ratio of early amniotomy after cervical ripening in women undergoing induction of labor.

Details of the study

The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 1,273 women in 4 randomized controlled trials to determine the effectiveness of routine early amniotomy versus late amniotomy/spontaneous rupture of membranes after cervical ripening (with either a Foley catheter or prostaglandins) in women with a singleton vertex fetus undergoing induction of labor in the term or late preterm period.

Early amniotomy was defined as AROM “soon after cervical ripening” (cases); late amniotomy was defined as AROM after the active phase of labor or spontaneous rupture of membranes (controls).

The primary outcome was the incidence of CD. Secondary outcomes included the overall length of labor, latency from induction to delivery, and neonatal morbidity (a composite of birth weight, Apgar scores, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, neonatal sepsis, need for resuscitation, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit).

Continue to: Findings...

Findings. Women randomly assigned to early amniotomy had a similar risk of CD compared with controls (31.1% vs 30.9% [relative risk (RR), 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71–1.56]) and a shorter interval from induction to delivery of about 5 hours (mean difference, -4.95 hours [95% CI, -8.12 to -1.78]).

There was no difference in any of the secondary outcome measures, although the number of events was small. Specifically, there was no significant difference in rates of chorioamnionitis between the early and late amniotomy cohorts (7.3% vs 4.8% [RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.95–2.28]).

Study strengths and limitations

This is the first systematic review to evaluate early versus late amniotomy after cervical ripening for induction of labor. “Systematic review and meta-analysis” is not synonymous with a review of the literature. It has its own methodology and is regarded as original research. A strength of this study is that it was performed by a highly credible team who followed established Cochrane and PRISMA methodological and reporting guidelines.

Study weaknesses include the fact that the meta-analysis contained a relatively small number of trials and study participants. It was significantly underpowered to address issues related to neonatal outcome. The 4 trials included were highly variable in terms of maternal parity and indications for labor induction and CD. The definition of “early amniotomy” was inconsistent, and the overall rate of CD varied greatly among the studies (7.9%–41.1%). Multiple pregnancies were excluded. Taken together, these findings may have limited generalizability.

De Vivo V, Carbone L, Saccone G, et al. Early amniotomy after cervical ripening for induction of labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.07.049.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Induction of labor has doubled over the past 2 decades, with almost 25% of parturients currently undergoing induction in the United States.¹ Labor induction at term is associated with perinatal outcomes similar to those with spontaneous labor, without an increase in the CD rate.^1-3 Although numerous methods for cervical ripening have been evaluated, the safest and most effective method has yet to be determined.²

Amniotomy—or artificial rupture of membranes (AROM)—has long been used as a technique for labor induction and for augmentation in women in spontaneous labor. Purported benefits include an increased responsiveness to exogenous oxytocin, decreased interval to delivery, and an increased likelihood of spontaneous vaginal delivery. Risks of amniotomy include injury to the fetus or surrounding tissues, bleeding, nonreassuring fetal testing, cord prolapse, and prolonged rupture of membranes (defined as longer than 18 hours), which is a risk factor for intra-amniotic infection.

The optimal timing of amniotomy is not known. The recent study by De Vivo and colleagues was designed to better understand the risk/benefit ratio of early amniotomy after cervical ripening in women undergoing induction of labor.

Details of the study

The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 1,273 women in 4 randomized controlled trials to determine the effectiveness of routine early amniotomy versus late amniotomy/spontaneous rupture of membranes after cervical ripening (with either a Foley catheter or prostaglandins) in women with a singleton vertex fetus undergoing induction of labor in the term or late preterm period.

Early amniotomy was defined as AROM “soon after cervical ripening” (cases); late amniotomy was defined as AROM after the active phase of labor or spontaneous rupture of membranes (controls).

The primary outcome was the incidence of CD. Secondary outcomes included the overall length of labor, latency from induction to delivery, and neonatal morbidity (a composite of birth weight, Apgar scores, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, neonatal sepsis, need for resuscitation, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit).

Continue to: Findings...

Findings. Women randomly assigned to early amniotomy had a similar risk of CD compared with controls (31.1% vs 30.9% [relative risk (RR), 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71–1.56]) and a shorter interval from induction to delivery of about 5 hours (mean difference, -4.95 hours [95% CI, -8.12 to -1.78]).

There was no difference in any of the secondary outcome measures, although the number of events was small. Specifically, there was no significant difference in rates of chorioamnionitis between the early and late amniotomy cohorts (7.3% vs 4.8% [RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.95–2.28]).

Study strengths and limitations

This is the first systematic review to evaluate early versus late amniotomy after cervical ripening for induction of labor. “Systematic review and meta-analysis” is not synonymous with a review of the literature. It has its own methodology and is regarded as original research. A strength of this study is that it was performed by a highly credible team who followed established Cochrane and PRISMA methodological and reporting guidelines.

Study weaknesses include the fact that the meta-analysis contained a relatively small number of trials and study participants. It was significantly underpowered to address issues related to neonatal outcome. The 4 trials included were highly variable in terms of maternal parity and indications for labor induction and CD. The definition of “early amniotomy” was inconsistent, and the overall rate of CD varied greatly among the studies (7.9%–41.1%). Multiple pregnancies were excluded. Taken together, these findings may have limited generalizability.

COPENHAGEN – Exposure to maternal somatic anxiety during pregnancy and toddlerhood increases a child’s risk of hyperactivity symptoms in adolescence, Blanca Bolea, MD, said at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

In contrast, the children of mothers who were anxious were not at increased risk for subsequent inattention symptoms in an analysis of 8,725 mothers and their children participating in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, a prospective epidemiologic cohort study ongoing in southwest England since 1991, said Dr. Bolea, a psychiatrist at the University of Toronto.

These findings have practical implications for clinical care: “If we know that women who are anxious in the perinatal period put their children at risk for hyperactivity later on, then we can tackle their anxiety in pregnancy or toddlerhood. And that’s easy to do: You can do group [cognitive-behavioral therapy]; you can give medications, so there are things you can do to reduce that risk. That’s relevant, because we don’t know much about how to reduce levels of ADHD. We know it has a genetic component, but we can’t touch that. You cannot change your genes, so far. But environmental things, we can change. So if we can identify the mothers who are more anxious during pregnancy and toddlerhood and give them resources to reduce their anxiety, then we can potentially reduce hyperactivity later on,” she explained in an interview.

In the Avon study, maternal anxiety was serially assessed from early pregnancy up until a child’s 5th birthday.

“We looked for maternal symptoms similar to panic disorder: shortness of breath, dizziness, sweating, things like that. These are symptoms that any clinician can identify by asking the mothers, so it’s not hard to identify the mothers who could be at risk,” according to the psychiatrist.

Children in the Avon study were assessed for symptoms of inattention at age 8.5 years using the Sky Search, Sky Search Dual Test, and Opposite Worlds subtests of the Tests of Everyday Attention for Children. Hyperactivity symptoms were assessed at age 16 years via the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.

In an analysis adjusted for potentially confounding sociodemographic factors, adolescents whose mothers were rated by investigators as having moderate or high somatic anxiety during pregnancy and the toddlerhood years were at 2.1-fold increased risk of hyperactivity symptoms compared to those whose mothers had low or no anxiety, but increased maternal anxiety wasn’t associated with scores on any of the three tests of inattention.

Dr. Bolea cautioned that, while these Avon study findings document an association between early maternal anxiety and subsequent adolescent hyperactivity, that doesn’t prove causality. The findings are consistent, however, with the fetal origins hypothesis put forth by the late British epidemiologist David J. Barker, MD, PhD, which postulates that stressful fetal circumstances have profound effects later in life.

“What we’re thinking here is, if the mother is anxious during pregnancy, that may change how the fetal brain develops, and it makes kids hyperactive later on,” she said.

The hypothesis has been borne out in animal studies: Stress a pregnant rat, and her offspring will display hyperactivity.

Dr. Bolea reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study. The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children is funded by the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust.

[email protected]

COPENHAGEN – Exposure to maternal somatic anxiety during pregnancy and toddlerhood increases a child’s risk of hyperactivity symptoms in adolescence, Blanca Bolea, MD, said at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

In contrast, the children of mothers who were anxious were not at increased risk for subsequent inattention symptoms in an analysis of 8,725 mothers and their children participating in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, a prospective epidemiologic cohort study ongoing in southwest England since 1991, said Dr. Bolea, a psychiatrist at the University of Toronto.

These findings have practical implications for clinical care: “If we know that women who are anxious in the perinatal period put their children at risk for hyperactivity later on, then we can tackle their anxiety in pregnancy or toddlerhood. And that’s easy to do: You can do group [cognitive-behavioral therapy]; you can give medications, so there are things you can do to reduce that risk. That’s relevant, because we don’t know much about how to reduce levels of ADHD. We know it has a genetic component, but we can’t touch that. You cannot change your genes, so far. But environmental things, we can change. So if we can identify the mothers who are more anxious during pregnancy and toddlerhood and give them resources to reduce their anxiety, then we can potentially reduce hyperactivity later on,” she explained in an interview.

In the Avon study, maternal anxiety was serially assessed from early pregnancy up until a child’s 5th birthday.

“We looked for maternal symptoms similar to panic disorder: shortness of breath, dizziness, sweating, things like that. These are symptoms that any clinician can identify by asking the mothers, so it’s not hard to identify the mothers who could be at risk,” according to the psychiatrist.

Children in the Avon study were assessed for symptoms of inattention at age 8.5 years using the Sky Search, Sky Search Dual Test, and Opposite Worlds subtests of the Tests of Everyday Attention for Children. Hyperactivity symptoms were assessed at age 16 years via the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.

In an analysis adjusted for potentially confounding sociodemographic factors, adolescents whose mothers were rated by investigators as having moderate or high somatic anxiety during pregnancy and the toddlerhood years were at 2.1-fold increased risk of hyperactivity symptoms compared to those whose mothers had low or no anxiety, but increased maternal anxiety wasn’t associated with scores on any of the three tests of inattention.

Dr. Bolea cautioned that, while these Avon study findings document an association between early maternal anxiety and subsequent adolescent hyperactivity, that doesn’t prove causality. The findings are consistent, however, with the fetal origins hypothesis put forth by the late British epidemiologist David J. Barker, MD, PhD, which postulates that stressful fetal circumstances have profound effects later in life.

“What we’re thinking here is, if the mother is anxious during pregnancy, that may change how the fetal brain develops, and it makes kids hyperactive later on,” she said.

The hypothesis has been borne out in animal studies: Stress a pregnant rat, and her offspring will display hyperactivity.

Dr. Bolea reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study. The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children is funded by the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust.

[email protected]

COPENHAGEN – Exposure to maternal somatic anxiety during pregnancy and toddlerhood increases a child’s risk of hyperactivity symptoms in adolescence, Blanca Bolea, MD, said at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

In contrast, the children of mothers who were anxious were not at increased risk for subsequent inattention symptoms in an analysis of 8,725 mothers and their children participating in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, a prospective epidemiologic cohort study ongoing in southwest England since 1991, said Dr. Bolea, a psychiatrist at the University of Toronto.

These findings have practical implications for clinical care: “If we know that women who are anxious in the perinatal period put their children at risk for hyperactivity later on, then we can tackle their anxiety in pregnancy or toddlerhood. And that’s easy to do: You can do group [cognitive-behavioral therapy]; you can give medications, so there are things you can do to reduce that risk. That’s relevant, because we don’t know much about how to reduce levels of ADHD. We know it has a genetic component, but we can’t touch that. You cannot change your genes, so far. But environmental things, we can change. So if we can identify the mothers who are more anxious during pregnancy and toddlerhood and give them resources to reduce their anxiety, then we can potentially reduce hyperactivity later on,” she explained in an interview.

In the Avon study, maternal anxiety was serially assessed from early pregnancy up until a child’s 5th birthday.

“We looked for maternal symptoms similar to panic disorder: shortness of breath, dizziness, sweating, things like that. These are symptoms that any clinician can identify by asking the mothers, so it’s not hard to identify the mothers who could be at risk,” according to the psychiatrist.

Children in the Avon study were assessed for symptoms of inattention at age 8.5 years using the Sky Search, Sky Search Dual Test, and Opposite Worlds subtests of the Tests of Everyday Attention for Children. Hyperactivity symptoms were assessed at age 16 years via the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.

In an analysis adjusted for potentially confounding sociodemographic factors, adolescents whose mothers were rated by investigators as having moderate or high somatic anxiety during pregnancy and the toddlerhood years were at 2.1-fold increased risk of hyperactivity symptoms compared to those whose mothers had low or no anxiety, but increased maternal anxiety wasn’t associated with scores on any of the three tests of inattention.

Dr. Bolea cautioned that, while these Avon study findings document an association between early maternal anxiety and subsequent adolescent hyperactivity, that doesn’t prove causality. The findings are consistent, however, with the fetal origins hypothesis put forth by the late British epidemiologist David J. Barker, MD, PhD, which postulates that stressful fetal circumstances have profound effects later in life.

“What we’re thinking here is, if the mother is anxious during pregnancy, that may change how the fetal brain develops, and it makes kids hyperactive later on,” she said.

The hypothesis has been borne out in animal studies: Stress a pregnant rat, and her offspring will display hyperactivity.

Dr. Bolea reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study. The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children is funded by the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust.

[email protected]

Like their cisgender counterparts, transgender and gender nonconforming patients (trans patients) may reach a point in their lives where they want to build their own families. This may be achieved through adoption, alternative insemination with donor sperm, or assisted reproductive treatment with donor sperm or egg, cryopreserved sperm or egg, or surrogacy.¹There are several unique needs of trans patients that extend into obstetrics and may be addressed as early as the first gender transition visit. Obstetricians can provide more equitable care to trans individuals by acknowledging these needs and providing gender-inclusive counseling and guidance.

Stuart Jenner/Thinkstock

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommends that medical providers counsel patients about the potential effects of medical transitioning on their fertility prior to the initiation of hormonal or surgical therapies.² Patients should be educated about options for fertility preservation and reproduction since exogenous hormones and gonadectomy impact fertility.³ A referral to a fertility specialist should be placed for patients interested in oocyte or sperm cryopreservation, embryo cryopreservation, or ovarian tissue cryopreservation.²

If a trans patient presents to the obstetrician/gynecologist for preconception counseling after undergoing medical gender transition, they should be offered evidence-based guidance based on an organ inventory (surgical history with documentation of natal sex organs still in situ). A biologic pregnancy may be a fertility option for a patient who has a vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries and is not currently using testosterone. Gender-affirming testosterone therapy suppresses ovulation and causes amenorrhea in most patients, although this is often reversible once the exogenous hormone is discontinued.² When the patient is ovulating on their own or undergoes ovulation induction, conception may be achieved via the same methods used with cisgender couples: Sperm is obtained from a partner or donor, followed by intercourse if the patient is comfortable with this, intrauterine insemination (IUI), or in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Conversely, a trans patient with a penis and testicles who has already undergone medical gender affirmation with estrogen should be counseled that prior exposure to estrogen may have caused irreversible testicular damage, making assisted reproductive treatment more challenging if sperm had not been cryopreserved prior to starting gender-affirming hormone therapy.² If spermatogenesis is successful or sperm was previously cryopreserved, the next step in reproductive counseling for these patients centers on finding gestational carriers and egg donors if the patient does not already have a partner who is willing or able to carry the child. At this point in time, uterine transplantation has not been attempted in a trans patient and therefore is not considered a viable fertility option.

The trans patient who becomes pregnant will encounter physical changes that may trigger underlying gender dysphoria. One study found that transgender men who experience pregnancy exhibited varying degrees of gender dysphoria.⁴ Obstetrician/gynecologists should have an awareness about the possibility of heightened gender dysphoria and sensitively approach prenatal visits by avoiding triggering language or using inappropriate pronouns. Simply asking a trans patient about preferred pronouns and terminology for body parts can be the difference between a negative and positive pregnancy experience. For example, a transman may prefer a different term for vagina/vulva/cervix. This is especially important at the time of delivery, when exams may become more frequent for the patient. However, inclusive prenatal care starts from the first prenatal visit when the patient checks in and continues all the way through the doctor/patient experience. All office staff should be trained to use preferred names and pronouns and gender-neutral restrooms should be easily accessible. Likewise, waiting rooms should include visible support for the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer or questioning) patient population.

The anatomy ultrasound and “gender reveal” during the pregnancy and at the time of delivery can understandably also be a sensitive subject for a pregnant trans patient. Previous cultural practice has been to describe the gender of the fetus at the anatomy ultrasound, when in fact, gender can only be self-determined by an individual many years after birth. What the anatomy ultrasound does convey is the appearance of external genitalia to help predict the assigned sex. As obstetrician/gynecologists who practice evidence-based medicine, we are encouraged to challenge the cultural norm of announcing the gender of the baby at time of ultrasound and at time of birth. We should focus instead on conveying what objective information we do know. After the infant is born, we know the sex they are assigned based on the what external reproductive organs are seen.

In the postpartum period, trans patients who successfully carried a pregnancy may choose to feed their infant with their own human milk. For some trans patients, breastfeeding may be referred to as chestfeeding, since this terminology is more gender neutral. Having prior chest masculinization surgery does not exclude a transmasculine patient from lactating, although milk production may vary. Patients should be counseled that there is limited data on the safety of testosterone use while lactating.¹ We found only one case report of induced lactation in a nonpuerperal transfeminine patient.⁵ In addition to addressing infant feeding concerns, obstetrician/gynecologists should counsel postpartum trans patients about contraceptive options and screen for perinatal mood disorders, especially those patients with a history of mood disorders before pregnancy.

Ultimately, trans patients seeking fertility options and obstetrical care have a right to obtain reliable information and access gender-inclusive treatment from their obstetrician/gynecologists. Each family makeup is unique and should be respected by all health care professionals taking care of the patient. As obstetrician/gynecologists, it is our duty to coordinate and advocate for the equitable care of our trans patients who want to grow their families.

Dr. Joyner is an assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, and is the director of gynecologic services in the Gender Center at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta. Dr. Joyner identifies as a cisgender female and uses she/hers/her as her personal pronouns. Dr. Katie Riddle is an ob.gyn. in Connecticut who is passionate about LGBTQ health care. She recently completed her residency in Ann Arbor, Mich. Dr. Riddle identifies as a cisgender female and uses she/hers/her as her personal pronouns. Dr. Joyner and Dr. Riddle said they had no financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. Viloria RP. “Reproductive Health and Obstetric Care in Transgender Patients.” Fenway Health.

2. Amato P. “Fertility options for transgender persons.” University of California, San Francisco Transgender Care and Treatment Guidelines. 2016 Jun 17.

3. Fertil Steril. 2015 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.021.

4. Obstet Gynecol. 2014. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000540.

5. Transgend Health. 2018 Jan 1. doi: 10.1089/trgh.2017.0044.

Like their cisgender counterparts, transgender and gender nonconforming patients (trans patients) may reach a point in their lives where they want to build their own families. This may be achieved through adoption, alternative insemination with donor sperm, or assisted reproductive treatment with donor sperm or egg, cryopreserved sperm or egg, or surrogacy.¹There are several unique needs of trans patients that extend into obstetrics and may be addressed as early as the first gender transition visit. Obstetricians can provide more equitable care to trans individuals by acknowledging these needs and providing gender-inclusive counseling and guidance.

Stuart Jenner/Thinkstock

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommends that medical providers counsel patients about the potential effects of medical transitioning on their fertility prior to the initiation of hormonal or surgical therapies.² Patients should be educated about options for fertility preservation and reproduction since exogenous hormones and gonadectomy impact fertility.³ A referral to a fertility specialist should be placed for patients interested in oocyte or sperm cryopreservation, embryo cryopreservation, or ovarian tissue cryopreservation.²

If a trans patient presents to the obstetrician/gynecologist for preconception counseling after undergoing medical gender transition, they should be offered evidence-based guidance based on an organ inventory (surgical history with documentation of natal sex organs still in situ). A biologic pregnancy may be a fertility option for a patient who has a vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries and is not currently using testosterone. Gender-affirming testosterone therapy suppresses ovulation and causes amenorrhea in most patients, although this is often reversible once the exogenous hormone is discontinued.² When the patient is ovulating on their own or undergoes ovulation induction, conception may be achieved via the same methods used with cisgender couples: Sperm is obtained from a partner or donor, followed by intercourse if the patient is comfortable with this, intrauterine insemination (IUI), or in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Conversely, a trans patient with a penis and testicles who has already undergone medical gender affirmation with estrogen should be counseled that prior exposure to estrogen may have caused irreversible testicular damage, making assisted reproductive treatment more challenging if sperm had not been cryopreserved prior to starting gender-affirming hormone therapy.² If spermatogenesis is successful or sperm was previously cryopreserved, the next step in reproductive counseling for these patients centers on finding gestational carriers and egg donors if the patient does not already have a partner who is willing or able to carry the child. At this point in time, uterine transplantation has not been attempted in a trans patient and therefore is not considered a viable fertility option.

The trans patient who becomes pregnant will encounter physical changes that may trigger underlying gender dysphoria. One study found that transgender men who experience pregnancy exhibited varying degrees of gender dysphoria.⁴ Obstetrician/gynecologists should have an awareness about the possibility of heightened gender dysphoria and sensitively approach prenatal visits by avoiding triggering language or using inappropriate pronouns. Simply asking a trans patient about preferred pronouns and terminology for body parts can be the difference between a negative and positive pregnancy experience. For example, a transman may prefer a different term for vagina/vulva/cervix. This is especially important at the time of delivery, when exams may become more frequent for the patient. However, inclusive prenatal care starts from the first prenatal visit when the patient checks in and continues all the way through the doctor/patient experience. All office staff should be trained to use preferred names and pronouns and gender-neutral restrooms should be easily accessible. Likewise, waiting rooms should include visible support for the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer or questioning) patient population.

The anatomy ultrasound and “gender reveal” during the pregnancy and at the time of delivery can understandably also be a sensitive subject for a pregnant trans patient. Previous cultural practice has been to describe the gender of the fetus at the anatomy ultrasound, when in fact, gender can only be self-determined by an individual many years after birth. What the anatomy ultrasound does convey is the appearance of external genitalia to help predict the assigned sex. As obstetrician/gynecologists who practice evidence-based medicine, we are encouraged to challenge the cultural norm of announcing the gender of the baby at time of ultrasound and at time of birth. We should focus instead on conveying what objective information we do know. After the infant is born, we know the sex they are assigned based on the what external reproductive organs are seen.

In the postpartum period, trans patients who successfully carried a pregnancy may choose to feed their infant with their own human milk. For some trans patients, breastfeeding may be referred to as chestfeeding, since this terminology is more gender neutral. Having prior chest masculinization surgery does not exclude a transmasculine patient from lactating, although milk production may vary. Patients should be counseled that there is limited data on the safety of testosterone use while lactating.¹ We found only one case report of induced lactation in a nonpuerperal transfeminine patient.⁵ In addition to addressing infant feeding concerns, obstetrician/gynecologists should counsel postpartum trans patients about contraceptive options and screen for perinatal mood disorders, especially those patients with a history of mood disorders before pregnancy.

Ultimately, trans patients seeking fertility options and obstetrical care have a right to obtain reliable information and access gender-inclusive treatment from their obstetrician/gynecologists. Each family makeup is unique and should be respected by all health care professionals taking care of the patient. As obstetrician/gynecologists, it is our duty to coordinate and advocate for the equitable care of our trans patients who want to grow their families.

Dr. Joyner is an assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, and is the director of gynecologic services in the Gender Center at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta. Dr. Joyner identifies as a cisgender female and uses she/hers/her as her personal pronouns. Dr. Katie Riddle is an ob.gyn. in Connecticut who is passionate about LGBTQ health care. She recently completed her residency in Ann Arbor, Mich. Dr. Riddle identifies as a cisgender female and uses she/hers/her as her personal pronouns. Dr. Joyner and Dr. Riddle said they had no financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. Viloria RP. “Reproductive Health and Obstetric Care in Transgender Patients.” Fenway Health.

2. Amato P. “Fertility options for transgender persons.” University of California, San Francisco Transgender Care and Treatment Guidelines. 2016 Jun 17.

3. Fertil Steril. 2015 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.021.

4. Obstet Gynecol. 2014. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000540.

5. Transgend Health. 2018 Jan 1. doi: 10.1089/trgh.2017.0044.

Like their cisgender counterparts, transgender and gender nonconforming patients (trans patients) may reach a point in their lives where they want to build their own families. This may be achieved through adoption, alternative insemination with donor sperm, or assisted reproductive treatment with donor sperm or egg, cryopreserved sperm or egg, or surrogacy.¹There are several unique needs of trans patients that extend into obstetrics and may be addressed as early as the first gender transition visit. Obstetricians can provide more equitable care to trans individuals by acknowledging these needs and providing gender-inclusive counseling and guidance.

Stuart Jenner/Thinkstock

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommends that medical providers counsel patients about the potential effects of medical transitioning on their fertility prior to the initiation of hormonal or surgical therapies.² Patients should be educated about options for fertility preservation and reproduction since exogenous hormones and gonadectomy impact fertility.³ A referral to a fertility specialist should be placed for patients interested in oocyte or sperm cryopreservation, embryo cryopreservation, or ovarian tissue cryopreservation.²

If a trans patient presents to the obstetrician/gynecologist for preconception counseling after undergoing medical gender transition, they should be offered evidence-based guidance based on an organ inventory (surgical history with documentation of natal sex organs still in situ). A biologic pregnancy may be a fertility option for a patient who has a vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries and is not currently using testosterone. Gender-affirming testosterone therapy suppresses ovulation and causes amenorrhea in most patients, although this is often reversible once the exogenous hormone is discontinued.² When the patient is ovulating on their own or undergoes ovulation induction, conception may be achieved via the same methods used with cisgender couples: Sperm is obtained from a partner or donor, followed by intercourse if the patient is comfortable with this, intrauterine insemination (IUI), or in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Conversely, a trans patient with a penis and testicles who has already undergone medical gender affirmation with estrogen should be counseled that prior exposure to estrogen may have caused irreversible testicular damage, making assisted reproductive treatment more challenging if sperm had not been cryopreserved prior to starting gender-affirming hormone therapy.² If spermatogenesis is successful or sperm was previously cryopreserved, the next step in reproductive counseling for these patients centers on finding gestational carriers and egg donors if the patient does not already have a partner who is willing or able to carry the child. At this point in time, uterine transplantation has not been attempted in a trans patient and therefore is not considered a viable fertility option.

The trans patient who becomes pregnant will encounter physical changes that may trigger underlying gender dysphoria. One study found that transgender men who experience pregnancy exhibited varying degrees of gender dysphoria.⁴ Obstetrician/gynecologists should have an awareness about the possibility of heightened gender dysphoria and sensitively approach prenatal visits by avoiding triggering language or using inappropriate pronouns. Simply asking a trans patient about preferred pronouns and terminology for body parts can be the difference between a negative and positive pregnancy experience. For example, a transman may prefer a different term for vagina/vulva/cervix. This is especially important at the time of delivery, when exams may become more frequent for the patient. However, inclusive prenatal care starts from the first prenatal visit when the patient checks in and continues all the way through the doctor/patient experience. All office staff should be trained to use preferred names and pronouns and gender-neutral restrooms should be easily accessible. Likewise, waiting rooms should include visible support for the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer or questioning) patient population.

The anatomy ultrasound and “gender reveal” during the pregnancy and at the time of delivery can understandably also be a sensitive subject for a pregnant trans patient. Previous cultural practice has been to describe the gender of the fetus at the anatomy ultrasound, when in fact, gender can only be self-determined by an individual many years after birth. What the anatomy ultrasound does convey is the appearance of external genitalia to help predict the assigned sex. As obstetrician/gynecologists who practice evidence-based medicine, we are encouraged to challenge the cultural norm of announcing the gender of the baby at time of ultrasound and at time of birth. We should focus instead on conveying what objective information we do know. After the infant is born, we know the sex they are assigned based on the what external reproductive organs are seen.

In the postpartum period, trans patients who successfully carried a pregnancy may choose to feed their infant with their own human milk. For some trans patients, breastfeeding may be referred to as chestfeeding, since this terminology is more gender neutral. Having prior chest masculinization surgery does not exclude a transmasculine patient from lactating, although milk production may vary. Patients should be counseled that there is limited data on the safety of testosterone use while lactating.¹ We found only one case report of induced lactation in a nonpuerperal transfeminine patient.⁵ In addition to addressing infant feeding concerns, obstetrician/gynecologists should counsel postpartum trans patients about contraceptive options and screen for perinatal mood disorders, especially those patients with a history of mood disorders before pregnancy.

Ultimately, trans patients seeking fertility options and obstetrical care have a right to obtain reliable information and access gender-inclusive treatment from their obstetrician/gynecologists. Each family makeup is unique and should be respected by all health care professionals taking care of the patient. As obstetrician/gynecologists, it is our duty to coordinate and advocate for the equitable care of our trans patients who want to grow their families.

Dr. Joyner is an assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, and is the director of gynecologic services in the Gender Center at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta. Dr. Joyner identifies as a cisgender female and uses she/hers/her as her personal pronouns. Dr. Katie Riddle is an ob.gyn. in Connecticut who is passionate about LGBTQ health care. She recently completed her residency in Ann Arbor, Mich. Dr. Riddle identifies as a cisgender female and uses she/hers/her as her personal pronouns. Dr. Joyner and Dr. Riddle said they had no financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. Viloria RP. “Reproductive Health and Obstetric Care in Transgender Patients.” Fenway Health.

2. Amato P. “Fertility options for transgender persons.” University of California, San Francisco Transgender Care and Treatment Guidelines. 2016 Jun 17.

3. Fertil Steril. 2015 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.021.

4. Obstet Gynecol. 2014. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000540.

5. Transgend Health. 2018 Jan 1. doi: 10.1089/trgh.2017.0044.

Pregnant women should be screened for asymptomatic bacteriuria using urine culture because the benefit of reducing pyelonephritis during pregnancy slightly but significantly outweighs the risks of maternal and fetal antibiotic exposure, according to new recommendations set forth by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

toeytoey2530/Thinkstock

However, the investigating committee reported, there is evidence against screening nonpregnant women and adult men. In fact, the committee found “adequate” evidence of potential harm associated with treating asymptomatic bacteriuria in adults of both sexes, including adverse effects of antibiotics and on the microbiome.

The new document downgrades from A to B the group’s prior recommendation that urine culture screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria should be performed among pregnant women at 12-16 weeks’ gestation or at their first prenatal visit. The USPSTF recommendation to not screen nonpregnant adults retained its D rating, Jerome A. Leis, MD and Christine Soong, MD said in an accompanying editorial.

“Not screening or treating asymptomatic bacteriuria in this population has long been an ironclad recommendation endorsed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, as well as numerous professional societies as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign,” wrote Dr. Leis of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, and Dr. Soong of the University of Toronto. “Restating this steadfast and pervasive recommendation may seem unremarkable and almost pedantic, yet it remains stubbornly disregarded by clinicians across multiple settings.”

The new recommendations were based on a review of 19 studies involving almost 8,500 pregnant and nonpregnant women, as well as a small number of adult men. Most were carried out in the 1960s or 1970s. The most recent ones were published in 2002 and 2015. The dearth of more recent data may have limited some conclusions and certainly highlighted the need for more research, said Jillian T. Henderson, PhD, chair of the committee assigned to investigate the evidence.

“Few studies of asymptomatic bacteriuria screening or treatment in pregnant populations have been conducted in the past 40 years,” wrote Dr. Henderson of Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, and associates. “Historical evidence established asymptomatic bacteriuria screening and treatment as standard obstetric practice in the United States.” But these trials typically were less rigorous than modern studies, and the results are out of touch with modern clinical settings and treatment protocols, the team noted.

Additionally, Dr. Henderson and coauthors said, rates of pyelonephritis were about 10 times higher then than they are now. In the more recent studies, pyelonephritis rates in control groups were 2.2% and 2.5%; in most of the older studies, control group rates ranged from 33% to 36%.

In commissioning the investigation, the task force looked at the following four questions:

Does screening improve health outcomes?

Neither of two studies involving 5,289 women, one from Spain and one from Turkey, addressed this question in nonpregnant women; however, studies that looked at pregnant women generally found that screening did reduce the risk of pyelonephritis by about 70%. The investigators cautioned that these studies were out of date and perhaps methodologically flawed.

The only study that looked at newborn outcomes found no difference in birth weights or premature births between the screened and unscreened cohorts.

No study examined this question in nonpregnant women or men.
 

What are the harms of such screening?

A single study of 372 pregnant women described potential prenatal and perinatal harms associated with screening and treatment. It found a slight increase in congenital abnormalities in the screened cohort (1.6%), compared with those who were not screened (1.1%). However, those who were not screened were presumably not prescribed antibiotics.

Does treatment of screening-detected asymptomatic bacteriuria improve health outcomes?

Twelve trials of pregnant women (2,377) addressed this issue. All but two were conducted in the 1960s and 1970s. Treatment varied widely; sulfonamides were the most common, including the now discarded sulfamethazine and sulfadimethoxine. Dosages and duration of treatment also were considerably higher and longer than current practice.

In all but one study, there were higher rates of pyelonephritis in the control group. A pooled risk analysis indicated that treatment reduced the risk of pyelonephritis by nearly 80% (relative risk, 0.24).

Seven studies found higher rates of low birth weight in infants born to mothers who were treated, but two studies reported a significant reduction in the risk of low birth weight.

Among the six trials that examined perinatal mortality, none found significant associations with treatment.

Five studies examined treatment in nonpregnant women with screening-detected asymptomatic bacteriuria, and one included men as well. Of the four that reported the rate of symptomatic infection or pyelonephritis, none found a significant difference between treatment and control groups. The single study that included men also found no significant difference between treatment and control groups.

Among the three studies that focused on older adults, there also were no significant between-group differences in outcomes.

What harms are associated with treatment of screening-detected asymptomatic bacteriuria?

Seven studies comprised pregnant women. Five reported congenital malformations in the intervention and control groups. Overall, there were very few cases of malformations, with more – although not significantly more – in the control groups.

Evidence related to other infant and maternal harms was “sparsely and inconsistently reported,” Dr. Henderson and coauthors noted, “and there was a lack of evidence on long-term neonatal outcomes after antibiotic treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnancy.”

Two studies listed maternal adverse events associated with different treatments including vaginitis and diarrhea with ampicillin and rashes and nausea with nalidixic acid.

In terms of nonpregnant women and men, four studies reported adverse events. None occurred with nitrofurantoin or trimethoprim treatment; however, one study that included daily treatment with ofloxacin noted that 6% withdrew because of adverse events – vertigo and gastrointestinal symptoms.

Treatments didn’t affect hematocrit, bilirubin, serum urea, or nitrogen, although some studies found a slight reduction in serum creatinine.

Although there’s a need for additional research into this question, the new recommendations provide a good reason to further reduce unnecessary antibiotic exposure, Lindsey E. Nicolle, MD, wrote in a second commentary.

These updated recommendations “contribute to the evolution of management of asymptomatic bacteriuria in healthy women,” wrote Dr. Nicolle of the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg. “However, questions remain about the risks and benefits of universal screening for and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnant women in the context of current clinical practice. The effects of changes in fetal-maternal care, of low- compared with high-risk pregnancies, and of health care access need to be understood. In the short term, application of current diagnostic recommendations for identification of persistent symptomatic bacteriuria with a second urine culture may provide an immediate opportunity to limit unnecessary antimicrobial use for some pregnant women.”

No conflicts of interest were reported by the USPSTF authors, nor by Dr. Leis, Dr. Soong, or Dr. Nicolle. The USPSTF report was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
 

SOURCES: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2019;322(12):1188-94; Henderson JT et al. JAMA. 2019;322(12):1195-205; Leis JA and Soong C. JAMA. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4515; Nicolle LE. JAMA. 2019;322(12):1152-4.

Pregnant women should be screened for asymptomatic bacteriuria using urine culture because the benefit of reducing pyelonephritis during pregnancy slightly but significantly outweighs the risks of maternal and fetal antibiotic exposure, according to new recommendations set forth by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

toeytoey2530/Thinkstock

However, the investigating committee reported, there is evidence against screening nonpregnant women and adult men. In fact, the committee found “adequate” evidence of potential harm associated with treating asymptomatic bacteriuria in adults of both sexes, including adverse effects of antibiotics and on the microbiome.

The new document downgrades from A to B the group’s prior recommendation that urine culture screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria should be performed among pregnant women at 12-16 weeks’ gestation or at their first prenatal visit. The USPSTF recommendation to not screen nonpregnant adults retained its D rating, Jerome A. Leis, MD and Christine Soong, MD said in an accompanying editorial.

“Not screening or treating asymptomatic bacteriuria in this population has long been an ironclad recommendation endorsed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, as well as numerous professional societies as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign,” wrote Dr. Leis of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, and Dr. Soong of the University of Toronto. “Restating this steadfast and pervasive recommendation may seem unremarkable and almost pedantic, yet it remains stubbornly disregarded by clinicians across multiple settings.”

The new recommendations were based on a review of 19 studies involving almost 8,500 pregnant and nonpregnant women, as well as a small number of adult men. Most were carried out in the 1960s or 1970s. The most recent ones were published in 2002 and 2015. The dearth of more recent data may have limited some conclusions and certainly highlighted the need for more research, said Jillian T. Henderson, PhD, chair of the committee assigned to investigate the evidence.

“Few studies of asymptomatic bacteriuria screening or treatment in pregnant populations have been conducted in the past 40 years,” wrote Dr. Henderson of Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, and associates. “Historical evidence established asymptomatic bacteriuria screening and treatment as standard obstetric practice in the United States.” But these trials typically were less rigorous than modern studies, and the results are out of touch with modern clinical settings and treatment protocols, the team noted.

Additionally, Dr. Henderson and coauthors said, rates of pyelonephritis were about 10 times higher then than they are now. In the more recent studies, pyelonephritis rates in control groups were 2.2% and 2.5%; in most of the older studies, control group rates ranged from 33% to 36%.

In commissioning the investigation, the task force looked at the following four questions:

Does screening improve health outcomes?

Neither of two studies involving 5,289 women, one from Spain and one from Turkey, addressed this question in nonpregnant women; however, studies that looked at pregnant women generally found that screening did reduce the risk of pyelonephritis by about 70%. The investigators cautioned that these studies were out of date and perhaps methodologically flawed.

The only study that looked at newborn outcomes found no difference in birth weights or premature births between the screened and unscreened cohorts.

No study examined this question in nonpregnant women or men.
 

What are the harms of such screening?

A single study of 372 pregnant women described potential prenatal and perinatal harms associated with screening and treatment. It found a slight increase in congenital abnormalities in the screened cohort (1.6%), compared with those who were not screened (1.1%). However, those who were not screened were presumably not prescribed antibiotics.

Does treatment of screening-detected asymptomatic bacteriuria improve health outcomes?

Twelve trials of pregnant women (2,377) addressed this issue. All but two were conducted in the 1960s and 1970s. Treatment varied widely; sulfonamides were the most common, including the now discarded sulfamethazine and sulfadimethoxine. Dosages and duration of treatment also were considerably higher and longer than current practice.

In all but one study, there were higher rates of pyelonephritis in the control group. A pooled risk analysis indicated that treatment reduced the risk of pyelonephritis by nearly 80% (relative risk, 0.24).

Seven studies found higher rates of low birth weight in infants born to mothers who were treated, but two studies reported a significant reduction in the risk of low birth weight.

Among the six trials that examined perinatal mortality, none found significant associations with treatment.

Five studies examined treatment in nonpregnant women with screening-detected asymptomatic bacteriuria, and one included men as well. Of the four that reported the rate of symptomatic infection or pyelonephritis, none found a significant difference between treatment and control groups. The single study that included men also found no significant difference between treatment and control groups.

Among the three studies that focused on older adults, there also were no significant between-group differences in outcomes.

What harms are associated with treatment of screening-detected asymptomatic bacteriuria?

Seven studies comprised pregnant women. Five reported congenital malformations in the intervention and control groups. Overall, there were very few cases of malformations, with more – although not significantly more – in the control groups.

Evidence related to other infant and maternal harms was “sparsely and inconsistently reported,” Dr. Henderson and coauthors noted, “and there was a lack of evidence on long-term neonatal outcomes after antibiotic treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnancy.”

Two studies listed maternal adverse events associated with different treatments including vaginitis and diarrhea with ampicillin and rashes and nausea with nalidixic acid.

In terms of nonpregnant women and men, four studies reported adverse events. None occurred with nitrofurantoin or trimethoprim treatment; however, one study that included daily treatment with ofloxacin noted that 6% withdrew because of adverse events – vertigo and gastrointestinal symptoms.

Treatments didn’t affect hematocrit, bilirubin, serum urea, or nitrogen, although some studies found a slight reduction in serum creatinine.

Although there’s a need for additional research into this question, the new recommendations provide a good reason to further reduce unnecessary antibiotic exposure, Lindsey E. Nicolle, MD, wrote in a second commentary.

These updated recommendations “contribute to the evolution of management of asymptomatic bacteriuria in healthy women,” wrote Dr. Nicolle of the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg. “However, questions remain about the risks and benefits of universal screening for and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnant women in the context of current clinical practice. The effects of changes in fetal-maternal care, of low- compared with high-risk pregnancies, and of health care access need to be understood. In the short term, application of current diagnostic recommendations for identification of persistent symptomatic bacteriuria with a second urine culture may provide an immediate opportunity to limit unnecessary antimicrobial use for some pregnant women.”

No conflicts of interest were reported by the USPSTF authors, nor by Dr. Leis, Dr. Soong, or Dr. Nicolle. The USPSTF report was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
 

SOURCES: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2019;322(12):1188-94; Henderson JT et al. JAMA. 2019;322(12):1195-205; Leis JA and Soong C. JAMA. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4515; Nicolle LE. JAMA. 2019;322(12):1152-4.

Pregnant women should be screened for asymptomatic bacteriuria using urine culture because the benefit of reducing pyelonephritis during pregnancy slightly but significantly outweighs the risks of maternal and fetal antibiotic exposure, according to new recommendations set forth by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

toeytoey2530/Thinkstock

However, the investigating committee reported, there is evidence against screening nonpregnant women and adult men. In fact, the committee found “adequate” evidence of potential harm associated with treating asymptomatic bacteriuria in adults of both sexes, including adverse effects of antibiotics and on the microbiome.

The new document downgrades from A to B the group’s prior recommendation that urine culture screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria should be performed among pregnant women at 12-16 weeks’ gestation or at their first prenatal visit. The USPSTF recommendation to not screen nonpregnant adults retained its D rating, Jerome A. Leis, MD and Christine Soong, MD said in an accompanying editorial.

“Not screening or treating asymptomatic bacteriuria in this population has long been an ironclad recommendation endorsed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, as well as numerous professional societies as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign,” wrote Dr. Leis of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, and Dr. Soong of the University of Toronto. “Restating this steadfast and pervasive recommendation may seem unremarkable and almost pedantic, yet it remains stubbornly disregarded by clinicians across multiple settings.”

The new recommendations were based on a review of 19 studies involving almost 8,500 pregnant and nonpregnant women, as well as a small number of adult men. Most were carried out in the 1960s or 1970s. The most recent ones were published in 2002 and 2015. The dearth of more recent data may have limited some conclusions and certainly highlighted the need for more research, said Jillian T. Henderson, PhD, chair of the committee assigned to investigate the evidence.

“Few studies of asymptomatic bacteriuria screening or treatment in pregnant populations have been conducted in the past 40 years,” wrote Dr. Henderson of Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, and associates. “Historical evidence established asymptomatic bacteriuria screening and treatment as standard obstetric practice in the United States.” But these trials typically were less rigorous than modern studies, and the results are out of touch with modern clinical settings and treatment protocols, the team noted.

Additionally, Dr. Henderson and coauthors said, rates of pyelonephritis were about 10 times higher then than they are now. In the more recent studies, pyelonephritis rates in control groups were 2.2% and 2.5%; in most of the older studies, control group rates ranged from 33% to 36%.

In commissioning the investigation, the task force looked at the following four questions:

Does screening improve health outcomes?

Neither of two studies involving 5,289 women, one from Spain and one from Turkey, addressed this question in nonpregnant women; however, studies that looked at pregnant women generally found that screening did reduce the risk of pyelonephritis by about 70%. The investigators cautioned that these studies were out of date and perhaps methodologically flawed.

The only study that looked at newborn outcomes found no difference in birth weights or premature births between the screened and unscreened cohorts.

No study examined this question in nonpregnant women or men.
 

What are the harms of such screening?

A single study of 372 pregnant women described potential prenatal and perinatal harms associated with screening and treatment. It found a slight increase in congenital abnormalities in the screened cohort (1.6%), compared with those who were not screened (1.1%). However, those who were not screened were presumably not prescribed antibiotics.

Does treatment of screening-detected asymptomatic bacteriuria improve health outcomes?

Twelve trials of pregnant women (2,377) addressed this issue. All but two were conducted in the 1960s and 1970s. Treatment varied widely; sulfonamides were the most common, including the now discarded sulfamethazine and sulfadimethoxine. Dosages and duration of treatment also were considerably higher and longer than current practice.

In all but one study, there were higher rates of pyelonephritis in the control group. A pooled risk analysis indicated that treatment reduced the risk of pyelonephritis by nearly 80% (relative risk, 0.24).

Seven studies found higher rates of low birth weight in infants born to mothers who were treated, but two studies reported a significant reduction in the risk of low birth weight.

Among the six trials that examined perinatal mortality, none found significant associations with treatment.

Five studies examined treatment in nonpregnant women with screening-detected asymptomatic bacteriuria, and one included men as well. Of the four that reported the rate of symptomatic infection or pyelonephritis, none found a significant difference between treatment and control groups. The single study that included men also found no significant difference between treatment and control groups.

Among the three studies that focused on older adults, there also were no significant between-group differences in outcomes.

What harms are associated with treatment of screening-detected asymptomatic bacteriuria?

Seven studies comprised pregnant women. Five reported congenital malformations in the intervention and control groups. Overall, there were very few cases of malformations, with more – although not significantly more – in the control groups.

Evidence related to other infant and maternal harms was “sparsely and inconsistently reported,” Dr. Henderson and coauthors noted, “and there was a lack of evidence on long-term neonatal outcomes after antibiotic treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnancy.”

Two studies listed maternal adverse events associated with different treatments including vaginitis and diarrhea with ampicillin and rashes and nausea with nalidixic acid.

In terms of nonpregnant women and men, four studies reported adverse events. None occurred with nitrofurantoin or trimethoprim treatment; however, one study that included daily treatment with ofloxacin noted that 6% withdrew because of adverse events – vertigo and gastrointestinal symptoms.

Treatments didn’t affect hematocrit, bilirubin, serum urea, or nitrogen, although some studies found a slight reduction in serum creatinine.

Although there’s a need for additional research into this question, the new recommendations provide a good reason to further reduce unnecessary antibiotic exposure, Lindsey E. Nicolle, MD, wrote in a second commentary.

These updated recommendations “contribute to the evolution of management of asymptomatic bacteriuria in healthy women,” wrote Dr. Nicolle of the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg. “However, questions remain about the risks and benefits of universal screening for and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnant women in the context of current clinical practice. The effects of changes in fetal-maternal care, of low- compared with high-risk pregnancies, and of health care access need to be understood. In the short term, application of current diagnostic recommendations for identification of persistent symptomatic bacteriuria with a second urine culture may provide an immediate opportunity to limit unnecessary antimicrobial use for some pregnant women.”

No conflicts of interest were reported by the USPSTF authors, nor by Dr. Leis, Dr. Soong, or Dr. Nicolle. The USPSTF report was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
 

SOURCES: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2019;322(12):1188-94; Henderson JT et al. JAMA. 2019;322(12):1195-205; Leis JA and Soong C. JAMA. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4515; Nicolle LE. JAMA. 2019;322(12):1152-4.

A new study found no association between sleep position during pregnancy and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes such as stillbirth, small-for-gestational-age (SGA) newborns, and gestational hypertensive disorders. The finding, published in the October issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, conflicts with previous retrospective case-control studies that suggested left-side sleeping may lead to reduced risk. The disagreement may be due to the prospective nature of the new study, which followed 8,706 women over 4 years.

©Brand X Pictures/thinkstockphotos.com

Right-side or back sleeping had attracted suspicion because of its potential to compress uterine blood vessels and decrease uterine blood flow, and various public health campaigns urge pregnant women to sleep on their left side. Although case-control studies backed up those worries, those retrospective approaches can suffer from limitations including recall bias, in which grieving mothers overreport suspect sleeping behaviors, perhaps in search of an explanation for their loss.

Prospective analyses can counter some of those limitations. The researchers, led by Robert Silver, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, conducted a secondary analysis of the nuMoM2b study, examining adverse pregnancy outcomes and risk factors. It was a multicenter observational cohort study of 8,706 nulliparous women with singleton gestations who completed two sleep questionnaires: one between 6 and 13 weeks of gestation, and one between 22 and 29 weeks.

Adverse outcomes occurred in 1,903 women, including 178 cases of both SGA and hypertensive disorders, 8 with SGA plus stillbirth, 3 with hypertensive disorders plus stillbirth, and 2 cases with all three complications.

The researchers found no association between any adverse outcomes and sleep position either at the first visit in early pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.14) or the third visit in midpregnancy (aOR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.89-1.11). Propensity score matching to adjust non-left lateral positioning to the composite outcome also showed no association.

In midpregnancy, there was an association between non-left lateral sleeping and reduced risk of stillbirth (aOR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.09-0.75). “This observation is likely spurious owing to small numbers of stillbirths, Dr. Silver and associates said.

A post hoc analysis indicated that the study was sufficiently powered to detect clinically meaningful risks; ORs of 1.2 for hypertensive disorders, 1.23 for SGA, 2.4 for stillbirth, and 1.2 for the composite outcome.
 

Let sleeping mothers lie

Pregnant women have enough on their minds. They shouldn’t have to worry about sleep position as well, according to Nathan Fox, MD, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and Emily Oster, PhD, economist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who wrote an accompanying editorial.

It may seem harmless to direct women to sleep on their left side even if it has no benefit, but restricting a woman’s sleep options may leave her less well rested at a time when she is about to enter a period of sleep deprivation, as well as contribute to general discomfort, in their opinion.

Also, in the rare cases of a bad outcome, advice based on limited or poor quality evidence contributes to “devastating and unwarranted feelings of responsibility and guilt, and this harm to women already suffering from sadness and despair must not be minimized,” they said.

The study received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and grants from multiple universities. One author received research funding from Kyndermed through her institution. Another receives royalties from UpToDate.com. Dr. Fox and Dr. Oster have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCES: Silver RM et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003458; Fox N and Oster E. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019 Oct. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003466

A new study found no association between sleep position during pregnancy and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes such as stillbirth, small-for-gestational-age (SGA) newborns, and gestational hypertensive disorders. The finding, published in the October issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, conflicts with previous retrospective case-control studies that suggested left-side sleeping may lead to reduced risk. The disagreement may be due to the prospective nature of the new study, which followed 8,706 women over 4 years.

©Brand X Pictures/thinkstockphotos.com

Right-side or back sleeping had attracted suspicion because of its potential to compress uterine blood vessels and decrease uterine blood flow, and various public health campaigns urge pregnant women to sleep on their left side. Although case-control studies backed up those worries, those retrospective approaches can suffer from limitations including recall bias, in which grieving mothers overreport suspect sleeping behaviors, perhaps in search of an explanation for their loss.

Prospective analyses can counter some of those limitations. The researchers, led by Robert Silver, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, conducted a secondary analysis of the nuMoM2b study, examining adverse pregnancy outcomes and risk factors. It was a multicenter observational cohort study of 8,706 nulliparous women with singleton gestations who completed two sleep questionnaires: one between 6 and 13 weeks of gestation, and one between 22 and 29 weeks.

Adverse outcomes occurred in 1,903 women, including 178 cases of both SGA and hypertensive disorders, 8 with SGA plus stillbirth, 3 with hypertensive disorders plus stillbirth, and 2 cases with all three complications.

The researchers found no association between any adverse outcomes and sleep position either at the first visit in early pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.14) or the third visit in midpregnancy (aOR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.89-1.11). Propensity score matching to adjust non-left lateral positioning to the composite outcome also showed no association.

In midpregnancy, there was an association between non-left lateral sleeping and reduced risk of stillbirth (aOR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.09-0.75). “This observation is likely spurious owing to small numbers of stillbirths, Dr. Silver and associates said.

A post hoc analysis indicated that the study was sufficiently powered to detect clinically meaningful risks; ORs of 1.2 for hypertensive disorders, 1.23 for SGA, 2.4 for stillbirth, and 1.2 for the composite outcome.
 

Let sleeping mothers lie

Pregnant women have enough on their minds. They shouldn’t have to worry about sleep position as well, according to Nathan Fox, MD, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and Emily Oster, PhD, economist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who wrote an accompanying editorial.

It may seem harmless to direct women to sleep on their left side even if it has no benefit, but restricting a woman’s sleep options may leave her less well rested at a time when she is about to enter a period of sleep deprivation, as well as contribute to general discomfort, in their opinion.

Also, in the rare cases of a bad outcome, advice based on limited or poor quality evidence contributes to “devastating and unwarranted feelings of responsibility and guilt, and this harm to women already suffering from sadness and despair must not be minimized,” they said.

The study received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and grants from multiple universities. One author received research funding from Kyndermed through her institution. Another receives royalties from UpToDate.com. Dr. Fox and Dr. Oster have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCES: Silver RM et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003458; Fox N and Oster E. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019 Oct. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003466

A new study found no association between sleep position during pregnancy and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes such as stillbirth, small-for-gestational-age (SGA) newborns, and gestational hypertensive disorders. The finding, published in the October issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, conflicts with previous retrospective case-control studies that suggested left-side sleeping may lead to reduced risk. The disagreement may be due to the prospective nature of the new study, which followed 8,706 women over 4 years.

©Brand X Pictures/thinkstockphotos.com

Right-side or back sleeping had attracted suspicion because of its potential to compress uterine blood vessels and decrease uterine blood flow, and various public health campaigns urge pregnant women to sleep on their left side. Although case-control studies backed up those worries, those retrospective approaches can suffer from limitations including recall bias, in which grieving mothers overreport suspect sleeping behaviors, perhaps in search of an explanation for their loss.

Prospective analyses can counter some of those limitations. The researchers, led by Robert Silver, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, conducted a secondary analysis of the nuMoM2b study, examining adverse pregnancy outcomes and risk factors. It was a multicenter observational cohort study of 8,706 nulliparous women with singleton gestations who completed two sleep questionnaires: one between 6 and 13 weeks of gestation, and one between 22 and 29 weeks.

Adverse outcomes occurred in 1,903 women, including 178 cases of both SGA and hypertensive disorders, 8 with SGA plus stillbirth, 3 with hypertensive disorders plus stillbirth, and 2 cases with all three complications.

The researchers found no association between any adverse outcomes and sleep position either at the first visit in early pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.14) or the third visit in midpregnancy (aOR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.89-1.11). Propensity score matching to adjust non-left lateral positioning to the composite outcome also showed no association.

In midpregnancy, there was an association between non-left lateral sleeping and reduced risk of stillbirth (aOR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.09-0.75). “This observation is likely spurious owing to small numbers of stillbirths, Dr. Silver and associates said.

A post hoc analysis indicated that the study was sufficiently powered to detect clinically meaningful risks; ORs of 1.2 for hypertensive disorders, 1.23 for SGA, 2.4 for stillbirth, and 1.2 for the composite outcome.
 

Let sleeping mothers lie

Pregnant women have enough on their minds. They shouldn’t have to worry about sleep position as well, according to Nathan Fox, MD, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and Emily Oster, PhD, economist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who wrote an accompanying editorial.

It may seem harmless to direct women to sleep on their left side even if it has no benefit, but restricting a woman’s sleep options may leave her less well rested at a time when she is about to enter a period of sleep deprivation, as well as contribute to general discomfort, in their opinion.

Also, in the rare cases of a bad outcome, advice based on limited or poor quality evidence contributes to “devastating and unwarranted feelings of responsibility and guilt, and this harm to women already suffering from sadness and despair must not be minimized,” they said.

The study received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and grants from multiple universities. One author received research funding from Kyndermed through her institution. Another receives royalties from UpToDate.com. Dr. Fox and Dr. Oster have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCES: Silver RM et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003458; Fox N and Oster E. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019 Oct. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003466

NEW ORLEANS – A large portion of maternal pregnancy-related deaths happen in the days or weeks after the baby is delivered, and they’re often related to hypertension, according to Natalie Bello, MD, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University in New York.

In medical school, “they told me that you deliver the placenta, and the preeclampsia goes away. Not the case. Postpartum preeclampsia is a real thing. We are seeing a lot of it at our sites, which have a lot of underserved women who hadn’t had great prenatal care” elsewhere, she said.

Headache and visual changes in association with hypertension during what’s been dubbed “the fourth trimester” raise suspicions. Women can progress rapidly to eclampsia and HELLP syndrome (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, low platelet count), but sometimes providers don’t recognize what’s going on because they don’t know women have recently given birth. “We can do better; we should be doing better. Please always ask women if they’ve delivered recently,” Dr. Bello said at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.

Hypertension should resolve within 6 weeks of delivery, and blood pressure should be back to baseline by 3 months. To make sure that happens, BP should be checked within a few days of birth and regularly thereafter. It can be tough to get busy and tired new moms back into the office, but “they’ll do whatever it takes” to get their baby to a pediatric appointment, so maybe having pediatricians involved in checking blood pressure would help, she said.

The cutoff point for hypertension in pregnancy is 140/90 mm Hg, and it’s considered severe when values hit 160/110 mm Hg or higher. Evidence is strong for treating severe hypertension to reduce strokes, placental abruptions, and other problems, but the data for treating nonsevere hypertension are less clear, Dr. Bello explained.

The Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy (CHAP) trial is expected to fill the evidence gap in a few years; women are being randomized to start treatment at either 140/90 mm Hg or 160/105 mm Hg. Meanwhile, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently suggested that treatment of nonsevere hypertension might be appropriate in the setting of comorbidities and renal dysfunction (Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan;133[1]:e26-e50).

Dr. Bello prefers treating with extended-release calcium channel blocker nifedipine over the beta-blocker labetalol. “We think it is a little more effective,” and the once daily dosing, instead of two or three times a day, helps with compliance. Thiazide diuretics and hydralazine are also in her arsenal, but hydralazine shouldn’t be used in isolation because of its reflex tachycardia risk. The old standby, the antiadrenergic methyldopa, has fallen out of favor because of depression and other concerns. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, renin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists shouldn’t be used in pregnancy, she said.

Intravenous labetalol and short-acting oral nifedipine are the mainstays for urgent, severe hypertension, along with high-dose intravenous magnesium, especially for seizure control. IV hydralazine or nitroglycerin are other options, the latter particularly for pulmonary edema. “Be careful of synergistic hypotension with magnesium and nifedipine,” Dr. Bello said.

Dr. Bello didn’t have any industry disclosures.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – A large portion of maternal pregnancy-related deaths happen in the days or weeks after the baby is delivered, and they’re often related to hypertension, according to Natalie Bello, MD, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University in New York.

In medical school, “they told me that you deliver the placenta, and the preeclampsia goes away. Not the case. Postpartum preeclampsia is a real thing. We are seeing a lot of it at our sites, which have a lot of underserved women who hadn’t had great prenatal care” elsewhere, she said.

Headache and visual changes in association with hypertension during what’s been dubbed “the fourth trimester” raise suspicions. Women can progress rapidly to eclampsia and HELLP syndrome (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, low platelet count), but sometimes providers don’t recognize what’s going on because they don’t know women have recently given birth. “We can do better; we should be doing better. Please always ask women if they’ve delivered recently,” Dr. Bello said at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.

Hypertension should resolve within 6 weeks of delivery, and blood pressure should be back to baseline by 3 months. To make sure that happens, BP should be checked within a few days of birth and regularly thereafter. It can be tough to get busy and tired new moms back into the office, but “they’ll do whatever it takes” to get their baby to a pediatric appointment, so maybe having pediatricians involved in checking blood pressure would help, she said.

The cutoff point for hypertension in pregnancy is 140/90 mm Hg, and it’s considered severe when values hit 160/110 mm Hg or higher. Evidence is strong for treating severe hypertension to reduce strokes, placental abruptions, and other problems, but the data for treating nonsevere hypertension are less clear, Dr. Bello explained.

The Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy (CHAP) trial is expected to fill the evidence gap in a few years; women are being randomized to start treatment at either 140/90 mm Hg or 160/105 mm Hg. Meanwhile, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently suggested that treatment of nonsevere hypertension might be appropriate in the setting of comorbidities and renal dysfunction (Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan;133[1]:e26-e50).

Dr. Bello prefers treating with extended-release calcium channel blocker nifedipine over the beta-blocker labetalol. “We think it is a little more effective,” and the once daily dosing, instead of two or three times a day, helps with compliance. Thiazide diuretics and hydralazine are also in her arsenal, but hydralazine shouldn’t be used in isolation because of its reflex tachycardia risk. The old standby, the antiadrenergic methyldopa, has fallen out of favor because of depression and other concerns. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, renin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists shouldn’t be used in pregnancy, she said.

Intravenous labetalol and short-acting oral nifedipine are the mainstays for urgent, severe hypertension, along with high-dose intravenous magnesium, especially for seizure control. IV hydralazine or nitroglycerin are other options, the latter particularly for pulmonary edema. “Be careful of synergistic hypotension with magnesium and nifedipine,” Dr. Bello said.

Dr. Bello didn’t have any industry disclosures.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – A large portion of maternal pregnancy-related deaths happen in the days or weeks after the baby is delivered, and they’re often related to hypertension, according to Natalie Bello, MD, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University in New York.

In medical school, “they told me that you deliver the placenta, and the preeclampsia goes away. Not the case. Postpartum preeclampsia is a real thing. We are seeing a lot of it at our sites, which have a lot of underserved women who hadn’t had great prenatal care” elsewhere, she said.

Headache and visual changes in association with hypertension during what’s been dubbed “the fourth trimester” raise suspicions. Women can progress rapidly to eclampsia and HELLP syndrome (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, low platelet count), but sometimes providers don’t recognize what’s going on because they don’t know women have recently given birth. “We can do better; we should be doing better. Please always ask women if they’ve delivered recently,” Dr. Bello said at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.

Hypertension should resolve within 6 weeks of delivery, and blood pressure should be back to baseline by 3 months. To make sure that happens, BP should be checked within a few days of birth and regularly thereafter. It can be tough to get busy and tired new moms back into the office, but “they’ll do whatever it takes” to get their baby to a pediatric appointment, so maybe having pediatricians involved in checking blood pressure would help, she said.

The cutoff point for hypertension in pregnancy is 140/90 mm Hg, and it’s considered severe when values hit 160/110 mm Hg or higher. Evidence is strong for treating severe hypertension to reduce strokes, placental abruptions, and other problems, but the data for treating nonsevere hypertension are less clear, Dr. Bello explained.

The Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy (CHAP) trial is expected to fill the evidence gap in a few years; women are being randomized to start treatment at either 140/90 mm Hg or 160/105 mm Hg. Meanwhile, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently suggested that treatment of nonsevere hypertension might be appropriate in the setting of comorbidities and renal dysfunction (Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan;133[1]:e26-e50).

Dr. Bello prefers treating with extended-release calcium channel blocker nifedipine over the beta-blocker labetalol. “We think it is a little more effective,” and the once daily dosing, instead of two or three times a day, helps with compliance. Thiazide diuretics and hydralazine are also in her arsenal, but hydralazine shouldn’t be used in isolation because of its reflex tachycardia risk. The old standby, the antiadrenergic methyldopa, has fallen out of favor because of depression and other concerns. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, renin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists shouldn’t be used in pregnancy, she said.

Intravenous labetalol and short-acting oral nifedipine are the mainstays for urgent, severe hypertension, along with high-dose intravenous magnesium, especially for seizure control. IV hydralazine or nitroglycerin are other options, the latter particularly for pulmonary edema. “Be careful of synergistic hypotension with magnesium and nifedipine,” Dr. Bello said.

Dr. Bello didn’t have any industry disclosures.

[email protected]

Subchorionic hematomas in the first trimester were not associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes after 20 weeks’ gestation in singleton pregnancies, according to Mackenzie N. Naert of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and associates.

The investigators conducted a retrospective study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, of all women who presented for prenatal care before 14 weeks’ gestation at a single maternal-fetal medicine practice between January 2015 and December 2017. Of the 2,172 women with singleton pregnancies included in the analysis, 389 (18%) had a subchorionic hematoma.

Women with subchorionic hematomas were more likely to have their first ultrasound at an earlier gestational age (8 5/7 weeks vs. 9 6/7 weeks; P less than .001) and to have vaginal bleeding at the time of the ultrasound exam (32% vs. 8%; P less than .001). No other differences in baseline characteristics were observed, and after univariable analysis, subchorionic hematoma was not associated with any of the measured adverse outcomes, such as preterm birth, low birth weight, preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, placental disruption, intrauterine fetal death, cesarean section, blood transfusion, or antepartum admission.

In a regression analysis that included subchorionic hematoma, vaginal bleeding, and gestational age at ultrasound examination, vaginal bleeding had an independent association with preterm birth at less than 37 weeks’ gestation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.6) and birth weight less than the 10th percentile (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.6). No independent association was found for subchorionic hematoma.

“Most subchorionic hematomas present during the first trimester resolved by the second trimester,” the investigators wrote. “Therefore, women diagnosed with a first-trimester subchorionic hematoma should be reassured that their rate of adverse pregnancy outcomes at more than 20 weeks of gestation is not affected by the presence of the subchorionic hematoma. Additionally, we have previously shown that first-trimester subchorionic hematoma is not associated with pregnancy loss at less than 20 weeks of gestation.”

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Naert MN et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Sep 10. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003487.

Subchorionic hematomas in the first trimester were not associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes after 20 weeks’ gestation in singleton pregnancies, according to Mackenzie N. Naert of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and associates.

The investigators conducted a retrospective study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, of all women who presented for prenatal care before 14 weeks’ gestation at a single maternal-fetal medicine practice between January 2015 and December 2017. Of the 2,172 women with singleton pregnancies included in the analysis, 389 (18%) had a subchorionic hematoma.

Women with subchorionic hematomas were more likely to have their first ultrasound at an earlier gestational age (8 5/7 weeks vs. 9 6/7 weeks; P less than .001) and to have vaginal bleeding at the time of the ultrasound exam (32% vs. 8%; P less than .001). No other differences in baseline characteristics were observed, and after univariable analysis, subchorionic hematoma was not associated with any of the measured adverse outcomes, such as preterm birth, low birth weight, preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, placental disruption, intrauterine fetal death, cesarean section, blood transfusion, or antepartum admission.

In a regression analysis that included subchorionic hematoma, vaginal bleeding, and gestational age at ultrasound examination, vaginal bleeding had an independent association with preterm birth at less than 37 weeks’ gestation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.6) and birth weight less than the 10th percentile (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.6). No independent association was found for subchorionic hematoma.

“Most subchorionic hematomas present during the first trimester resolved by the second trimester,” the investigators wrote. “Therefore, women diagnosed with a first-trimester subchorionic hematoma should be reassured that their rate of adverse pregnancy outcomes at more than 20 weeks of gestation is not affected by the presence of the subchorionic hematoma. Additionally, we have previously shown that first-trimester subchorionic hematoma is not associated with pregnancy loss at less than 20 weeks of gestation.”

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Naert MN et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Sep 10. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003487.

Subchorionic hematomas in the first trimester were not associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes after 20 weeks’ gestation in singleton pregnancies, according to Mackenzie N. Naert of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and associates.

The investigators conducted a retrospective study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, of all women who presented for prenatal care before 14 weeks’ gestation at a single maternal-fetal medicine practice between January 2015 and December 2017. Of the 2,172 women with singleton pregnancies included in the analysis, 389 (18%) had a subchorionic hematoma.

Women with subchorionic hematomas were more likely to have their first ultrasound at an earlier gestational age (8 5/7 weeks vs. 9 6/7 weeks; P less than .001) and to have vaginal bleeding at the time of the ultrasound exam (32% vs. 8%; P less than .001). No other differences in baseline characteristics were observed, and after univariable analysis, subchorionic hematoma was not associated with any of the measured adverse outcomes, such as preterm birth, low birth weight, preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, placental disruption, intrauterine fetal death, cesarean section, blood transfusion, or antepartum admission.

In a regression analysis that included subchorionic hematoma, vaginal bleeding, and gestational age at ultrasound examination, vaginal bleeding had an independent association with preterm birth at less than 37 weeks’ gestation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.6) and birth weight less than the 10th percentile (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.6). No independent association was found for subchorionic hematoma.

“Most subchorionic hematomas present during the first trimester resolved by the second trimester,” the investigators wrote. “Therefore, women diagnosed with a first-trimester subchorionic hematoma should be reassured that their rate of adverse pregnancy outcomes at more than 20 weeks of gestation is not affected by the presence of the subchorionic hematoma. Additionally, we have previously shown that first-trimester subchorionic hematoma is not associated with pregnancy loss at less than 20 weeks of gestation.”

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Naert MN et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Sep 10. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003487.

Postdural puncture headache in women who have undergone neuraxial anesthesia in childbirth may be associated with a small but significant increase in the risk of being diagnosed with intracranial subdural hematoma, research findings suggest.

A cohort study, published online in JAMA Neurology, looked at the incidence of intracranial subdural hematoma within 2 months of delivery in 22,130,815 women, using data from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s National Readmission Database.

The overall rate of postdural puncture headaches was 309 per 100,000 deliveries, and the overall incidence of subdural hematoma was 1.5 per 100,000 deliveries. Among the women with postdural puncture headache, however, the unadjusted rate of subdural hematoma was 147 per 100,000. After adjusting for confounding factors, women who experienced postdural puncture headache had a nearly 200-fold higher risk of subdural hematoma (odds ratio, 199; P  less than .001), representing an absolute risk increase of 130 per 100,000 deliveries.

“This was a small absolute increase because of the rarity of this outcome in this population,” wrote Dr. Albert R. Moore of the Royal Victoria Hospital at McGill University, Montreal, and coauthors. “However, this is an important and devastating outcome for a common exposure in young and usually healthy mothers.”

The authors noted that these findings confirmed other reports linking postdural puncture headache and intracranial subdural hematoma. The proposed mechanism connecting the two conditions was that decreased intracranial pressure from cerebrospinal fluid leakages leads to “sagging” of the brain and tension on the veins between the dura and arachnoid, which in turn could trigger a rupture and formation of a subdural hematoma.

Other risk factors for subdural hematoma included coagulopathy, arteriovenous malformation, and delayed blood patch. The investigators also found that obesity was associated with a lower risk of headache after postdural puncture, which might be the result of increased intracranial pressure providing resistance to the development of subdural hematoma.

There was a significant interaction between postdural puncture headache, severe preeclampsia, and chronic hypertension. In the absence of postdural puncture headache, severe preeclampsia and chronic hypertension were both independently associated with significant increases in the risk of subdural hematoma, Dr. Moore and associates noted.

In women who experienced postdural puncture headache, only chronic hypertension was significantly associated with subdural hematoma, they said.

The study was limited in being observational and at risk of misclassification. In addition, there was a risk of surveillance bias in that women with postdural puncture headaches might be more likely to receive brain imaging that would pick up minor subdural hematomas, the investigators said.

The study was supported by McGill University Health Center’s department of anesthesia. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Moore A et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Sep 16. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.2995.

Postdural puncture headache in women who have undergone neuraxial anesthesia in childbirth may be associated with a small but significant increase in the risk of being diagnosed with intracranial subdural hematoma, research findings suggest.

A cohort study, published online in JAMA Neurology, looked at the incidence of intracranial subdural hematoma within 2 months of delivery in 22,130,815 women, using data from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s National Readmission Database.

The overall rate of postdural puncture headaches was 309 per 100,000 deliveries, and the overall incidence of subdural hematoma was 1.5 per 100,000 deliveries. Among the women with postdural puncture headache, however, the unadjusted rate of subdural hematoma was 147 per 100,000. After adjusting for confounding factors, women who experienced postdural puncture headache had a nearly 200-fold higher risk of subdural hematoma (odds ratio, 199; P  less than .001), representing an absolute risk increase of 130 per 100,000 deliveries.

“This was a small absolute increase because of the rarity of this outcome in this population,” wrote Dr. Albert R. Moore of the Royal Victoria Hospital at McGill University, Montreal, and coauthors. “However, this is an important and devastating outcome for a common exposure in young and usually healthy mothers.”

The authors noted that these findings confirmed other reports linking postdural puncture headache and intracranial subdural hematoma. The proposed mechanism connecting the two conditions was that decreased intracranial pressure from cerebrospinal fluid leakages leads to “sagging” of the brain and tension on the veins between the dura and arachnoid, which in turn could trigger a rupture and formation of a subdural hematoma.

Other risk factors for subdural hematoma included coagulopathy, arteriovenous malformation, and delayed blood patch. The investigators also found that obesity was associated with a lower risk of headache after postdural puncture, which might be the result of increased intracranial pressure providing resistance to the development of subdural hematoma.

There was a significant interaction between postdural puncture headache, severe preeclampsia, and chronic hypertension. In the absence of postdural puncture headache, severe preeclampsia and chronic hypertension were both independently associated with significant increases in the risk of subdural hematoma, Dr. Moore and associates noted.

In women who experienced postdural puncture headache, only chronic hypertension was significantly associated with subdural hematoma, they said.

The study was limited in being observational and at risk of misclassification. In addition, there was a risk of surveillance bias in that women with postdural puncture headaches might be more likely to receive brain imaging that would pick up minor subdural hematomas, the investigators said.

The study was supported by McGill University Health Center’s department of anesthesia. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Moore A et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Sep 16. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.2995.

Postdural puncture headache in women who have undergone neuraxial anesthesia in childbirth may be associated with a small but significant increase in the risk of being diagnosed with intracranial subdural hematoma, research findings suggest.

A cohort study, published online in JAMA Neurology, looked at the incidence of intracranial subdural hematoma within 2 months of delivery in 22,130,815 women, using data from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s National Readmission Database.

The overall rate of postdural puncture headaches was 309 per 100,000 deliveries, and the overall incidence of subdural hematoma was 1.5 per 100,000 deliveries. Among the women with postdural puncture headache, however, the unadjusted rate of subdural hematoma was 147 per 100,000. After adjusting for confounding factors, women who experienced postdural puncture headache had a nearly 200-fold higher risk of subdural hematoma (odds ratio, 199; P  less than .001), representing an absolute risk increase of 130 per 100,000 deliveries.

“This was a small absolute increase because of the rarity of this outcome in this population,” wrote Dr. Albert R. Moore of the Royal Victoria Hospital at McGill University, Montreal, and coauthors. “However, this is an important and devastating outcome for a common exposure in young and usually healthy mothers.”

The authors noted that these findings confirmed other reports linking postdural puncture headache and intracranial subdural hematoma. The proposed mechanism connecting the two conditions was that decreased intracranial pressure from cerebrospinal fluid leakages leads to “sagging” of the brain and tension on the veins between the dura and arachnoid, which in turn could trigger a rupture and formation of a subdural hematoma.

Other risk factors for subdural hematoma included coagulopathy, arteriovenous malformation, and delayed blood patch. The investigators also found that obesity was associated with a lower risk of headache after postdural puncture, which might be the result of increased intracranial pressure providing resistance to the development of subdural hematoma.

There was a significant interaction between postdural puncture headache, severe preeclampsia, and chronic hypertension. In the absence of postdural puncture headache, severe preeclampsia and chronic hypertension were both independently associated with significant increases in the risk of subdural hematoma, Dr. Moore and associates noted.

In women who experienced postdural puncture headache, only chronic hypertension was significantly associated with subdural hematoma, they said.

The study was limited in being observational and at risk of misclassification. In addition, there was a risk of surveillance bias in that women with postdural puncture headaches might be more likely to receive brain imaging that would pick up minor subdural hematomas, the investigators said.

The study was supported by McGill University Health Center’s department of anesthesia. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Moore A et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Sep 16. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.2995.