Obstetrics

Motherhood can create changes in the body down to the bone, a new study shows.

Female primates who had been pregnant showed lower levels of calcium, magnesium, and phosphorous in their bones, revealing for the first time new ways that females are changed by pregnancy and breastfeeding, according to a study published by PLOS One.

“Our findings provide additional evidence of the profound impact that reproduction has on the female organism, further demonstrating that the skeleton is not a static organ but a dynamic one that changes with life events,” said lead author and New York University doctoral student Paola Cerrito in a news release.

The study evaluated the bones of rhesus macaques, also known as rhesus monkeys, which share 93% of genes with humans, according to the National Primate Research Centers. They have been used in research that paved the way for many medical breakthroughs such as treatments for HIV/AIDS; they’re also used in Alzheimer’s research.

Menopause has long been known to impact bone health, which is tied to calcium and phosphorous levels. This latest research does not address how bone health is affected by pregnancy and lactation but further points to the everchanging state of bones based on life events.

“Our research shows that even before the cessation of fertility, the skeleton responds dynamically to changes in reproductive status,” Ms. Cerrito said. “Moreover, these findings reaffirm the significant impact giving birth has on a female organism – quite simply, evidence of reproduction is ‘written in the bones’ for life.”

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

Motherhood can create changes in the body down to the bone, a new study shows.

Female primates who had been pregnant showed lower levels of calcium, magnesium, and phosphorous in their bones, revealing for the first time new ways that females are changed by pregnancy and breastfeeding, according to a study published by PLOS One.

“Our findings provide additional evidence of the profound impact that reproduction has on the female organism, further demonstrating that the skeleton is not a static organ but a dynamic one that changes with life events,” said lead author and New York University doctoral student Paola Cerrito in a news release.

The study evaluated the bones of rhesus macaques, also known as rhesus monkeys, which share 93% of genes with humans, according to the National Primate Research Centers. They have been used in research that paved the way for many medical breakthroughs such as treatments for HIV/AIDS; they’re also used in Alzheimer’s research.

Menopause has long been known to impact bone health, which is tied to calcium and phosphorous levels. This latest research does not address how bone health is affected by pregnancy and lactation but further points to the everchanging state of bones based on life events.

“Our research shows that even before the cessation of fertility, the skeleton responds dynamically to changes in reproductive status,” Ms. Cerrito said. “Moreover, these findings reaffirm the significant impact giving birth has on a female organism – quite simply, evidence of reproduction is ‘written in the bones’ for life.”

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

Motherhood can create changes in the body down to the bone, a new study shows.

Female primates who had been pregnant showed lower levels of calcium, magnesium, and phosphorous in their bones, revealing for the first time new ways that females are changed by pregnancy and breastfeeding, according to a study published by PLOS One.

“Our findings provide additional evidence of the profound impact that reproduction has on the female organism, further demonstrating that the skeleton is not a static organ but a dynamic one that changes with life events,” said lead author and New York University doctoral student Paola Cerrito in a news release.

The study evaluated the bones of rhesus macaques, also known as rhesus monkeys, which share 93% of genes with humans, according to the National Primate Research Centers. They have been used in research that paved the way for many medical breakthroughs such as treatments for HIV/AIDS; they’re also used in Alzheimer’s research.

Menopause has long been known to impact bone health, which is tied to calcium and phosphorous levels. This latest research does not address how bone health is affected by pregnancy and lactation but further points to the everchanging state of bones based on life events.

“Our research shows that even before the cessation of fertility, the skeleton responds dynamically to changes in reproductive status,” Ms. Cerrito said. “Moreover, these findings reaffirm the significant impact giving birth has on a female organism – quite simply, evidence of reproduction is ‘written in the bones’ for life.”

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

Cesarean birth is one of the most common major surgical procedures performed in developed countries¹ with over 1,170,000 cesarean births in the United States in 2021.² Many surgeons and anesthesiologists believe that Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathways improve surgical outcomes.^3,4 Important goals of ERAS include setting patient expectations for the surgical procedure, accelerating patient recovery to full function, and minimizing perioperative complications such as severe nausea, aspiration, surgical site infection, wound complications, and perioperative anemia. The ERAS Society in 2018^5-7 and the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology (SOAP) in 2021⁸ proposed ERAS pathways for cesarean birth. Both societies recommended that obstetric units consider adopting an ERAS pathway compatible with local clinical resources. In addition, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has provided guidance for implementing ERAS pathways for gynecologic surgery.⁹ The consistent use of standardized protocols to improve surgical care in obstetrics should lead to a reduction in care variation and improve health equity outcomes.

The clinical interventions recommended for ERAS cesarean birth occur sequentially in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases of care. The recommendations associated with each of these phases are reviewed below. It is important to note that each obstetric unit should use a multidisciplinary process to develop an ERAS pathway that best supports local practice given clinician preferences, patient characteristics, and resource availability.
 

Preoperative components of ERAS

Standardized patient education (SPE). SPE is an important component of ERAS, although evidence to support the recommendation is limited. At a minimum a written handout describing steps in the cesarean birth process, or a patient-education video should be part of patient education. The University of Michigan Medical Center has produced a 3-minute video for patients explaining ERAS cesarean birth.¹⁰ The University of Maryland Medical Center has produced a 2.5-minute video in English and Spanish, explaining ERAS cesarean birth for patients.¹¹ Some surgeons place a telephone call to patients the evening before surgery to help orient the patient to ERAS cesarean birth.

Breastfeeding education. An important goal of obstetric care is to optimize the rate of exclusive breastfeeding at birth. Breastfeeding education, including a commitment to support the initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth, may enhance the rate of exclusive breastfeeding. There are numerous videos available for patients about breastfeeding after cesarean birth (as an example, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iOGn85NdTg).

Limit fasting. In the past, surgical guidelines recommended fasting after midnight prior to surgery. The ERAS Society recommends that patients should be encouraged to drink clear fluids up to 2 hours before surgery and may have a light meal up to 6 hours before surgery (Part 1).

Carbohydrate loading. Surgery causes a metabolic stress that is increased by fasting. Carbohydrate loading prior to surgery reduces the magnitude of the catabolic state caused by the combination of surgery and fasting.¹² SOAP and the ERAS Society recommend oral carbohydrate fluid supplementation 2 hours before surgery for nondiabetic patients. SOAP suggests 32 oz of Gatorade or 16 oz of clear apple juice as options for carbohydrate loading. For diabetic patients, the carbohydrate load can be omitted. In fasting pregnant patients at term, gastric emptying was near complete 2 hours after consumption of 400 mL of a carbohydrate drink.¹³ In one study, consumption of 400 mL of a carbohydrate drink 2 hours before cesarean resulted in a 7% increase in the newborn blood glucose level at 20 min after delivery.¹⁴

Minimize preoperative anemia. Approximately 50% of pregnant women are iron deficient and approximately 10% are anemic in the third trimester.^15,16 Cesarean birth is associated with significant blood loss necessitating the need to optimize red blood cell mass before surgery. Measuring ferritin to identify patients with iron deficiency and aggressive iron replacement, including intravenous iron if necessary, will reduce the prevalence of anemia prior to cesarean birth.¹⁷ Another cause of anemia in pregnancy is vitamin B12 (cobalamin) deficiency. Low vitamin B12 is especially common in pregnant patients who have previously had bariatric surgery. One study reported that, of 113 pregnant patients who were, on average, 3 years from a bariatric surgery procedure, 12% had vitamin B12 circulating levels < 130 pg/mL.¹⁸ Among pregnant patients who are anemic, and do not have a hemoglobinopathy, measuring ferritin, folic acid, and vitamin B12 will help identify the cause of anemia and guide treatment.¹⁹

Optimize preoperative physical condition. Improving healthy behaviors and reducing unhealthy behaviors preoperatively may enhance patient recovery to full function. In the weeks before scheduled cesarean birth, cessation of the use of tobacco products, optimizing activity and improving diet quality, including increasing protein intake, may best prepare patients for the metabolic stress of surgery.

Continue to: Intraoperative components of ERAS...

Intraoperative components of ERAS

Reduce the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and wound complications. Bundles that include antibiotics, chlorhexidine (or an alternative antibacterial soap) and clippers have been shown to reduce SSI.²⁰ Routine administration of preoperative antibiotics is a consensus recommendation and there is high adherence with this recommendation in the United States. Chlorhexidine-alcohol is the preferred solution for skin preparation. Vaginal preparation with povidine-iodine or chlorhexidine may be considered.⁶

Surgical technique. Blunt extension of a transverse hysterotomy may reduce blood loss. Closure of the hysterotomy incision in 2 layers is recommended to reduce uterine scar dehiscence in a subsequent pregnancy. If the patient has ≥2 cm of subcutaneous tissue, this layer should be approximated with sutures. Skin closure should be with subcuticular suture.⁶

Optimize uterotonic administration. Routine use of uterotonics reduces the risk of blood loss, transfusion, and postoperative anemia. There is high adherence with the use of uterotonic administration after birth in the United States.^6,8

Ensure normothermia. Many patients become hypothermic during a cesarean birth. Active warming of the patient with an in-line IV fluid warmer and forced air warming over the patient’s body can reduce the risk of hypothermia.⁸

Initiate multimodal anesthesia. Anesthesiologists often use intrathecal or epidural morphine to enhance analgesia. Ketorolac administration prior to completion of the cesarean procedure and perioperative administration of acetaminophen may reduce postoperative pain.⁸ The use of preoperative antiemetics will reduce intraoperative and postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Initiate VTE prophylaxis. Pneumatic compression stockings are recommended. Anticoagulation should not be routinely used for VTE prophylaxis.⁶

Postoperative components of ERAS

Patient education to prepare for discharge home when ready. Patient education focused on home when ready is important in preparing the patient for discharge home.⁷ Completion of required newborn testing, lactation education, and contraception planning plus coordination of newborn pediatric follow-up is necessary before discharge.

Support early return of bowel function. Early return of bowel function is best supported by a multimodal approach including initiation of clear fluid intake immediately following surgery, encouraging consumption of a regular diet within 2⁷ to 4 hours⁸ following surgery. Gum chewing for at least 5 minutes 3 times daily accelerates return of bowel function.⁸ In a meta-analysis of 10 randomized studies examining the effect of gum chewing after cesarean, the investigators reported that gum chewing shortened the time to passage of flatus and defecation.²¹

Early ambulation.

Sequentially advanced activity, starting with sitting on the edge of the bed, sitting in a chair, and ambulation within 8 hours of surgery, is recommended to facilitate faster recovery, reduce rates of complications, and enable transition to home.⁸

Early removal of the urinary catheter. It is recommended that the urinary catheter be removed within 12 hours after cesarean birth.⁸ Early removal of the urinary catheter increases patient mobility and reduces the length of hospitalization. Early removal of the urinary catheter may be associated with postoperative urinary retention and recatheterization in a small number of patients.

Prescribe routinely scheduled acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and ketorolac. A key component of ERAS cesarean birth is the standardized administration of nonopioid pain medicines, alternating doses of acetaminophen and an NSAID. ERAS cesarean birth is likely to result in a reduction in inpatient and postdischarge opioid use.^22-24

VTE prophylaxis. Pneumatic compression stockings are recommended. Anticoagulation should not be routinely used for VTE prophylaxis.⁸

Auditing and reporting adherence with components of ERAS

In clinical practice there may be a gap between a clinician’s subjective perception of their performance and an independent audit of their clinical performance. ERAS pathways should be implemented with a commitment to performing audits and providing quantitative feedback to clinicians. Consistent use of measurement, feedback, and coaching can improve performance and reduce variation among individual clinicians. As an example, in one study of the use of a surgical safety checklist, 99% of the surgeons reported that they routinely used a surgical safety checklist, but the audit showed that the checklist was used in only 60% of cases.²⁵ Gaps between self-reported performance and audited performance are common in clinical practice. Audits with feedback are critical to improving adherence with the components of an ERAS pathway.

Three independent systematic reviews and meta-analyses report that ERAS pathways reduce hospital length of stay without increasing the readmission rate.^26-28 One meta-analysis reported that ERAS may also reduce time to first mobilization and result in earlier removal of the urinary catheter.²⁶ ERAS pathways also may reduce postoperative complications, lower pain scores, and decrease opioid use.²⁷ The general consensus among quality and safety experts is that reducing variation through standardization of pathways is generally associated with improved quality and enhanced safety. ERAS pathways have been widely accepted in multiple surgical fields. ERAS pathways should become the standard for performing cesarean procedures.●

Cesarean birth is one of the most common major surgical procedures performed in developed countries¹ with over 1,170,000 cesarean births in the United States in 2021.² Many surgeons and anesthesiologists believe that Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathways improve surgical outcomes.^3,4 Important goals of ERAS include setting patient expectations for the surgical procedure, accelerating patient recovery to full function, and minimizing perioperative complications such as severe nausea, aspiration, surgical site infection, wound complications, and perioperative anemia. The ERAS Society in 2018^5-7 and the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology (SOAP) in 2021⁸ proposed ERAS pathways for cesarean birth. Both societies recommended that obstetric units consider adopting an ERAS pathway compatible with local clinical resources. In addition, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has provided guidance for implementing ERAS pathways for gynecologic surgery.⁹ The consistent use of standardized protocols to improve surgical care in obstetrics should lead to a reduction in care variation and improve health equity outcomes.

The clinical interventions recommended for ERAS cesarean birth occur sequentially in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases of care. The recommendations associated with each of these phases are reviewed below. It is important to note that each obstetric unit should use a multidisciplinary process to develop an ERAS pathway that best supports local practice given clinician preferences, patient characteristics, and resource availability.
 

Preoperative components of ERAS

Standardized patient education (SPE). SPE is an important component of ERAS, although evidence to support the recommendation is limited. At a minimum a written handout describing steps in the cesarean birth process, or a patient-education video should be part of patient education. The University of Michigan Medical Center has produced a 3-minute video for patients explaining ERAS cesarean birth.¹⁰ The University of Maryland Medical Center has produced a 2.5-minute video in English and Spanish, explaining ERAS cesarean birth for patients.¹¹ Some surgeons place a telephone call to patients the evening before surgery to help orient the patient to ERAS cesarean birth.

Breastfeeding education. An important goal of obstetric care is to optimize the rate of exclusive breastfeeding at birth. Breastfeeding education, including a commitment to support the initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth, may enhance the rate of exclusive breastfeeding. There are numerous videos available for patients about breastfeeding after cesarean birth (as an example, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iOGn85NdTg).

Limit fasting. In the past, surgical guidelines recommended fasting after midnight prior to surgery. The ERAS Society recommends that patients should be encouraged to drink clear fluids up to 2 hours before surgery and may have a light meal up to 6 hours before surgery (Part 1).

Carbohydrate loading. Surgery causes a metabolic stress that is increased by fasting. Carbohydrate loading prior to surgery reduces the magnitude of the catabolic state caused by the combination of surgery and fasting.¹² SOAP and the ERAS Society recommend oral carbohydrate fluid supplementation 2 hours before surgery for nondiabetic patients. SOAP suggests 32 oz of Gatorade or 16 oz of clear apple juice as options for carbohydrate loading. For diabetic patients, the carbohydrate load can be omitted. In fasting pregnant patients at term, gastric emptying was near complete 2 hours after consumption of 400 mL of a carbohydrate drink.¹³ In one study, consumption of 400 mL of a carbohydrate drink 2 hours before cesarean resulted in a 7% increase in the newborn blood glucose level at 20 min after delivery.¹⁴

Minimize preoperative anemia. Approximately 50% of pregnant women are iron deficient and approximately 10% are anemic in the third trimester.^15,16 Cesarean birth is associated with significant blood loss necessitating the need to optimize red blood cell mass before surgery. Measuring ferritin to identify patients with iron deficiency and aggressive iron replacement, including intravenous iron if necessary, will reduce the prevalence of anemia prior to cesarean birth.¹⁷ Another cause of anemia in pregnancy is vitamin B12 (cobalamin) deficiency. Low vitamin B12 is especially common in pregnant patients who have previously had bariatric surgery. One study reported that, of 113 pregnant patients who were, on average, 3 years from a bariatric surgery procedure, 12% had vitamin B12 circulating levels < 130 pg/mL.¹⁸ Among pregnant patients who are anemic, and do not have a hemoglobinopathy, measuring ferritin, folic acid, and vitamin B12 will help identify the cause of anemia and guide treatment.¹⁹

Optimize preoperative physical condition. Improving healthy behaviors and reducing unhealthy behaviors preoperatively may enhance patient recovery to full function. In the weeks before scheduled cesarean birth, cessation of the use of tobacco products, optimizing activity and improving diet quality, including increasing protein intake, may best prepare patients for the metabolic stress of surgery.

Continue to: Intraoperative components of ERAS...

Intraoperative components of ERAS

Reduce the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and wound complications. Bundles that include antibiotics, chlorhexidine (or an alternative antibacterial soap) and clippers have been shown to reduce SSI.²⁰ Routine administration of preoperative antibiotics is a consensus recommendation and there is high adherence with this recommendation in the United States. Chlorhexidine-alcohol is the preferred solution for skin preparation. Vaginal preparation with povidine-iodine or chlorhexidine may be considered.⁶

Surgical technique. Blunt extension of a transverse hysterotomy may reduce blood loss. Closure of the hysterotomy incision in 2 layers is recommended to reduce uterine scar dehiscence in a subsequent pregnancy. If the patient has ≥2 cm of subcutaneous tissue, this layer should be approximated with sutures. Skin closure should be with subcuticular suture.⁶

Optimize uterotonic administration. Routine use of uterotonics reduces the risk of blood loss, transfusion, and postoperative anemia. There is high adherence with the use of uterotonic administration after birth in the United States.^6,8

Ensure normothermia. Many patients become hypothermic during a cesarean birth. Active warming of the patient with an in-line IV fluid warmer and forced air warming over the patient’s body can reduce the risk of hypothermia.⁸

Initiate multimodal anesthesia. Anesthesiologists often use intrathecal or epidural morphine to enhance analgesia. Ketorolac administration prior to completion of the cesarean procedure and perioperative administration of acetaminophen may reduce postoperative pain.⁸ The use of preoperative antiemetics will reduce intraoperative and postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Initiate VTE prophylaxis. Pneumatic compression stockings are recommended. Anticoagulation should not be routinely used for VTE prophylaxis.⁶

Postoperative components of ERAS

Patient education to prepare for discharge home when ready. Patient education focused on home when ready is important in preparing the patient for discharge home.⁷ Completion of required newborn testing, lactation education, and contraception planning plus coordination of newborn pediatric follow-up is necessary before discharge.

Support early return of bowel function. Early return of bowel function is best supported by a multimodal approach including initiation of clear fluid intake immediately following surgery, encouraging consumption of a regular diet within 2⁷ to 4 hours⁸ following surgery. Gum chewing for at least 5 minutes 3 times daily accelerates return of bowel function.⁸ In a meta-analysis of 10 randomized studies examining the effect of gum chewing after cesarean, the investigators reported that gum chewing shortened the time to passage of flatus and defecation.²¹

Early ambulation.

Sequentially advanced activity, starting with sitting on the edge of the bed, sitting in a chair, and ambulation within 8 hours of surgery, is recommended to facilitate faster recovery, reduce rates of complications, and enable transition to home.⁸

Early removal of the urinary catheter. It is recommended that the urinary catheter be removed within 12 hours after cesarean birth.⁸ Early removal of the urinary catheter increases patient mobility and reduces the length of hospitalization. Early removal of the urinary catheter may be associated with postoperative urinary retention and recatheterization in a small number of patients.

Prescribe routinely scheduled acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and ketorolac. A key component of ERAS cesarean birth is the standardized administration of nonopioid pain medicines, alternating doses of acetaminophen and an NSAID. ERAS cesarean birth is likely to result in a reduction in inpatient and postdischarge opioid use.^22-24

VTE prophylaxis. Pneumatic compression stockings are recommended. Anticoagulation should not be routinely used for VTE prophylaxis.⁸

Auditing and reporting adherence with components of ERAS

In clinical practice there may be a gap between a clinician’s subjective perception of their performance and an independent audit of their clinical performance. ERAS pathways should be implemented with a commitment to performing audits and providing quantitative feedback to clinicians. Consistent use of measurement, feedback, and coaching can improve performance and reduce variation among individual clinicians. As an example, in one study of the use of a surgical safety checklist, 99% of the surgeons reported that they routinely used a surgical safety checklist, but the audit showed that the checklist was used in only 60% of cases.²⁵ Gaps between self-reported performance and audited performance are common in clinical practice. Audits with feedback are critical to improving adherence with the components of an ERAS pathway.

Three independent systematic reviews and meta-analyses report that ERAS pathways reduce hospital length of stay without increasing the readmission rate.^26-28 One meta-analysis reported that ERAS may also reduce time to first mobilization and result in earlier removal of the urinary catheter.²⁶ ERAS pathways also may reduce postoperative complications, lower pain scores, and decrease opioid use.²⁷ The general consensus among quality and safety experts is that reducing variation through standardization of pathways is generally associated with improved quality and enhanced safety. ERAS pathways have been widely accepted in multiple surgical fields. ERAS pathways should become the standard for performing cesarean procedures.●

Cesarean birth is one of the most common major surgical procedures performed in developed countries¹ with over 1,170,000 cesarean births in the United States in 2021.² Many surgeons and anesthesiologists believe that Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathways improve surgical outcomes.^3,4 Important goals of ERAS include setting patient expectations for the surgical procedure, accelerating patient recovery to full function, and minimizing perioperative complications such as severe nausea, aspiration, surgical site infection, wound complications, and perioperative anemia. The ERAS Society in 2018^5-7 and the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology (SOAP) in 2021⁸ proposed ERAS pathways for cesarean birth. Both societies recommended that obstetric units consider adopting an ERAS pathway compatible with local clinical resources. In addition, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has provided guidance for implementing ERAS pathways for gynecologic surgery.⁹ The consistent use of standardized protocols to improve surgical care in obstetrics should lead to a reduction in care variation and improve health equity outcomes.

The clinical interventions recommended for ERAS cesarean birth occur sequentially in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases of care. The recommendations associated with each of these phases are reviewed below. It is important to note that each obstetric unit should use a multidisciplinary process to develop an ERAS pathway that best supports local practice given clinician preferences, patient characteristics, and resource availability.
 

Preoperative components of ERAS

Standardized patient education (SPE). SPE is an important component of ERAS, although evidence to support the recommendation is limited. At a minimum a written handout describing steps in the cesarean birth process, or a patient-education video should be part of patient education. The University of Michigan Medical Center has produced a 3-minute video for patients explaining ERAS cesarean birth.¹⁰ The University of Maryland Medical Center has produced a 2.5-minute video in English and Spanish, explaining ERAS cesarean birth for patients.¹¹ Some surgeons place a telephone call to patients the evening before surgery to help orient the patient to ERAS cesarean birth.

Breastfeeding education. An important goal of obstetric care is to optimize the rate of exclusive breastfeeding at birth. Breastfeeding education, including a commitment to support the initiation of breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth, may enhance the rate of exclusive breastfeeding. There are numerous videos available for patients about breastfeeding after cesarean birth (as an example, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iOGn85NdTg).

Limit fasting. In the past, surgical guidelines recommended fasting after midnight prior to surgery. The ERAS Society recommends that patients should be encouraged to drink clear fluids up to 2 hours before surgery and may have a light meal up to 6 hours before surgery (Part 1).

Carbohydrate loading. Surgery causes a metabolic stress that is increased by fasting. Carbohydrate loading prior to surgery reduces the magnitude of the catabolic state caused by the combination of surgery and fasting.¹² SOAP and the ERAS Society recommend oral carbohydrate fluid supplementation 2 hours before surgery for nondiabetic patients. SOAP suggests 32 oz of Gatorade or 16 oz of clear apple juice as options for carbohydrate loading. For diabetic patients, the carbohydrate load can be omitted. In fasting pregnant patients at term, gastric emptying was near complete 2 hours after consumption of 400 mL of a carbohydrate drink.¹³ In one study, consumption of 400 mL of a carbohydrate drink 2 hours before cesarean resulted in a 7% increase in the newborn blood glucose level at 20 min after delivery.¹⁴

Minimize preoperative anemia. Approximately 50% of pregnant women are iron deficient and approximately 10% are anemic in the third trimester.^15,16 Cesarean birth is associated with significant blood loss necessitating the need to optimize red blood cell mass before surgery. Measuring ferritin to identify patients with iron deficiency and aggressive iron replacement, including intravenous iron if necessary, will reduce the prevalence of anemia prior to cesarean birth.¹⁷ Another cause of anemia in pregnancy is vitamin B12 (cobalamin) deficiency. Low vitamin B12 is especially common in pregnant patients who have previously had bariatric surgery. One study reported that, of 113 pregnant patients who were, on average, 3 years from a bariatric surgery procedure, 12% had vitamin B12 circulating levels < 130 pg/mL.¹⁸ Among pregnant patients who are anemic, and do not have a hemoglobinopathy, measuring ferritin, folic acid, and vitamin B12 will help identify the cause of anemia and guide treatment.¹⁹

Optimize preoperative physical condition. Improving healthy behaviors and reducing unhealthy behaviors preoperatively may enhance patient recovery to full function. In the weeks before scheduled cesarean birth, cessation of the use of tobacco products, optimizing activity and improving diet quality, including increasing protein intake, may best prepare patients for the metabolic stress of surgery.

Continue to: Intraoperative components of ERAS...

Intraoperative components of ERAS

Reduce the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and wound complications. Bundles that include antibiotics, chlorhexidine (or an alternative antibacterial soap) and clippers have been shown to reduce SSI.²⁰ Routine administration of preoperative antibiotics is a consensus recommendation and there is high adherence with this recommendation in the United States. Chlorhexidine-alcohol is the preferred solution for skin preparation. Vaginal preparation with povidine-iodine or chlorhexidine may be considered.⁶

Surgical technique. Blunt extension of a transverse hysterotomy may reduce blood loss. Closure of the hysterotomy incision in 2 layers is recommended to reduce uterine scar dehiscence in a subsequent pregnancy. If the patient has ≥2 cm of subcutaneous tissue, this layer should be approximated with sutures. Skin closure should be with subcuticular suture.⁶

Optimize uterotonic administration. Routine use of uterotonics reduces the risk of blood loss, transfusion, and postoperative anemia. There is high adherence with the use of uterotonic administration after birth in the United States.^6,8

Ensure normothermia. Many patients become hypothermic during a cesarean birth. Active warming of the patient with an in-line IV fluid warmer and forced air warming over the patient’s body can reduce the risk of hypothermia.⁸

Initiate multimodal anesthesia. Anesthesiologists often use intrathecal or epidural morphine to enhance analgesia. Ketorolac administration prior to completion of the cesarean procedure and perioperative administration of acetaminophen may reduce postoperative pain.⁸ The use of preoperative antiemetics will reduce intraoperative and postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Initiate VTE prophylaxis. Pneumatic compression stockings are recommended. Anticoagulation should not be routinely used for VTE prophylaxis.⁶

Postoperative components of ERAS

Patient education to prepare for discharge home when ready. Patient education focused on home when ready is important in preparing the patient for discharge home.⁷ Completion of required newborn testing, lactation education, and contraception planning plus coordination of newborn pediatric follow-up is necessary before discharge.

Support early return of bowel function. Early return of bowel function is best supported by a multimodal approach including initiation of clear fluid intake immediately following surgery, encouraging consumption of a regular diet within 2⁷ to 4 hours⁸ following surgery. Gum chewing for at least 5 minutes 3 times daily accelerates return of bowel function.⁸ In a meta-analysis of 10 randomized studies examining the effect of gum chewing after cesarean, the investigators reported that gum chewing shortened the time to passage of flatus and defecation.²¹

Early ambulation.

Sequentially advanced activity, starting with sitting on the edge of the bed, sitting in a chair, and ambulation within 8 hours of surgery, is recommended to facilitate faster recovery, reduce rates of complications, and enable transition to home.⁸

Early removal of the urinary catheter. It is recommended that the urinary catheter be removed within 12 hours after cesarean birth.⁸ Early removal of the urinary catheter increases patient mobility and reduces the length of hospitalization. Early removal of the urinary catheter may be associated with postoperative urinary retention and recatheterization in a small number of patients.

Prescribe routinely scheduled acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and ketorolac. A key component of ERAS cesarean birth is the standardized administration of nonopioid pain medicines, alternating doses of acetaminophen and an NSAID. ERAS cesarean birth is likely to result in a reduction in inpatient and postdischarge opioid use.^22-24

VTE prophylaxis. Pneumatic compression stockings are recommended. Anticoagulation should not be routinely used for VTE prophylaxis.⁸

Auditing and reporting adherence with components of ERAS

In clinical practice there may be a gap between a clinician’s subjective perception of their performance and an independent audit of their clinical performance. ERAS pathways should be implemented with a commitment to performing audits and providing quantitative feedback to clinicians. Consistent use of measurement, feedback, and coaching can improve performance and reduce variation among individual clinicians. As an example, in one study of the use of a surgical safety checklist, 99% of the surgeons reported that they routinely used a surgical safety checklist, but the audit showed that the checklist was used in only 60% of cases.²⁵ Gaps between self-reported performance and audited performance are common in clinical practice. Audits with feedback are critical to improving adherence with the components of an ERAS pathway.

Three independent systematic reviews and meta-analyses report that ERAS pathways reduce hospital length of stay without increasing the readmission rate.^26-28 One meta-analysis reported that ERAS may also reduce time to first mobilization and result in earlier removal of the urinary catheter.²⁶ ERAS pathways also may reduce postoperative complications, lower pain scores, and decrease opioid use.²⁷ The general consensus among quality and safety experts is that reducing variation through standardization of pathways is generally associated with improved quality and enhanced safety. ERAS pathways have been widely accepted in multiple surgical fields. ERAS pathways should become the standard for performing cesarean procedures.●

CASE Pregnant woman with a suspected parasitic infection

A 20-year-old, previously healthy, primigravid woman at 24 weeks’ gestation immigrated from Bolivia to the United States 3 days ago. On the morning of her international flight, she awoke to discover a small insect bite just below her left eye. She sought medical evaluation because her eyelid is now significantly swollen, and she has a headache, anorexia, fatigue, and a fever of 38.4° C. The examining physician ordered a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for Trypanosoma cruzi, and the test is positive.

• How should this patient be treated during, and after, her delivery?


• Does this infection pose a risk to the newborn baby?


• What type of surveillance and treatment is indicated for the baby?

Chagas disease is common in South America, Central America, and Mexico and is well known to physicians in those countries. Clinicians who practice in the United States are much less familiar with the condition, but it is becoming increasingly common as a result of international travel within the Americas.

In this article, we review the interesting microbiology and epidemiology of Chagas disease, focus on its clinical manifestations, and discuss the most useful diagnostic tests for the illness. We conclude with a summary of preventive and treatment measures, with particular emphasis on managing the disease in pregnancy.

How Chagas disease is transmitted and who is at risk

Chagas disease was named in honor of a Brazilian physician, Carlos Chagas, who first described the condition in 1909. The disease is endemic in South America, Central America, and Mexico, and, recently, its prevalence has increased in the southern United States. Approximately 300,000 people in the United States are infected.^1,2

The illness is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi, and it is also known as American trypanosomiasis. The parasite is spread primarily by the bite of triatomine insects (“kissing bugs”). Approximately 60% of these insects are infected with the parasite. The insects live and thrive in the interspaces of mud walls (adobe homes) and thatched roofs. At night, the insects leave their darkened spaces and feed on the exposed skin of sleeping persons. They are particularly likely to bite the moist skin surfaces near the eye and mouth, and, as they do, they defecate and excrete the parasite into the blood vessels beneath the skin. Within the blood, the trypomastigotes invade various host cells. Inside the host cells, the organism transforms into an amastigote, which is the replicative form of the parasite. After several rounds of replication, the amastigote transforms back into a trypomastigote, bursts from the cell, and goes on to infect other host cells.¹

In addition to transmission by the insect vector, the parasite also can be transmitted by blood transfusion and organ donation. When contaminated blood is transfused, the risk of transmission is approximately 10% to 25% for each unit. Following implementation of effective screening programs by blood banks in Central America, South America, Mexico, and the United States, the risk of transmission from undetected infection is now approximately 1:200,000 per unit.

When a transplant procedure with an infected heart is performed, the risk of transmission is 75% to 100%. For liver transplants, the frequency of transmission is 0% to 29%; for kidney transplants, the risk of transmission is 0% to 19%.

Consumption of contaminated food or drink, particularly nonpasteurized items sold by street vendors, is also an important mechanism of transmission. In addition, transmission can occur as a result of laboratory exposure and by exposure to wild animals (racoons, opossums, marmosets, bats, armadillos) in forested areas. Finally, perinatal transmission now accounts for about 22% of infections. As effective vector control programs have been introduced in endemic areas, the proportion of cases caused by the insect vector has steadily decreased^1-3 (FIGURE 1).

Continue to: Clinical manifestations of Chagas disease...

Clinical manifestations of Chagas disease

Chagas disease occurs in 2 stages, acute and chronic.^1,2,4 In patients who are infected via an insect vector, the acute stage typically begins 1 to 2 weeks after the insect bite. This phase of the illness usually lasts 4 to 8 weeks and almost always resolves without treatment.

Some infected patients will be completely free of symptoms. Others will have manifestations such as:

• fever
• malaise
• headache
• hepatosplenomegaly
• lymphadenopathy
• swollen nodule at the site of infection

—Romaña’s sign, when the lesion is on the eyelid
—Chagoma, when the lesion is elsewhere on the skin.

Fortunately, less than 5% of patients will have severe illness, manifested by myocarditis, pericarditis, encephalitis, or meningitis.

People infected by ingestion of the parasite in food or drink often become more severely ill within 3 weeks. Their clinical manifestations include fever, vomiting, dyspnea, cough, chest pain, abdominal pain, and myalgias. Individuals infected through organ transplant or blood transfusion present more like those infected by the insect vector, but their illness may not develop until several weeks to 5 months after exposure.

In the absence of effective treatment, approximately 40% of patients with acute infection will develop chronic infection, often several decades later. The most common, and most ominous, feature of chronic illness is cardiac disease, experienced by about 30% of patients. Cardiac disease may be manifested as a serious arrhythmia, chest pain, congestive heart failure, or thromboembolism.

The other organ system that is likely to be adversely affected in patients with chronic disease is the gastrointestinal (GI) system, and approximately 10% of chronically infected patients experience this complication. Patients may develop a dilated esophagus, which leads to odynophagia and dysphagia. Diminished motility in other areas of the GI tract also may result in chronic constipation and even bowel obstruction. Chronically infected patients who are immunosuppressed due to HIV infection may become gravely ill as a result of encephalitis and brain abscesses. Cardiac and GI dysfunction is due to the parasite’s massive destruction of nerve endings.

Continue to: Making the diagnosis...

The diagnosis of Chagas disease begins with screening patients who have epidemiologic risk factors that place them at high risk for contracting the infection and at significantly increased risk for morbidity and mortality as a result of either the acute infection or the later chronic stage of infection. A thorough history is vital in the evaluation because the acute illness can have such vague clinical manifestations, and many patients remain asymptomatic until signs of chronic infection appear.

Risk factors that warrant screening include being born in a country endemic for Chagas disease, living in an endemic country for more than 6 months, living with someone who has a confirmed diagnosis, residing in a house made of natural materials (mud walls, thatched roof) in an endemic area, and a history of discovering the triatomine bug in the household.

Screening options include serology, microscopy, and PCR testing. Screening with a single, highly sensitive immunoglobulin G (IgG) serologic test is recommended for nonendemic clinical or community settings. In patients who were born in or who lived in an endemic area for more than 6 months, special consideration should be given to screening women of reproductive age, patients of all ages who were born to a mother with a confirmed diagnosis, individuals who were exposed to a triatomine insect, and people who are immunocompromised.⁵

A positive serologic test should be confirmed with a second assay based on a different antigen. Currently, 4 IgG tests have US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for diagnosis. If a patient has 2 positive serologic tests, the diagnosis is confirmed, regardless of clinical presentation. Discordant results warrant a third test to differentiate between positive and negative results (FIGURE 2).⁵ All patients with a confirmed diagnosis should have an electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, and abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan to assess for cardiac or GI abnormalities.

Organ recipients merit special consideration because, in these individuals, the late stages of Chagas disease may be fatal. In these patients, the preferred diagnostic test is PCR. For transplant patients, monitoring should occur every week for 2 months, bimonthly for the third month, and monthly for 6 months after transplantation. Routine monitoring is not recommended in patients with HIV infection who show no clinical signs of Chagas disease and who are not from endemic areas.

Treatment options

No vaccine or hyperimmune globulin can be used to treat Chagas disease. At this time, 2 antiparasitic drugs are available to treat the condition. One is benznidazole, which inhibits DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis within the microorganism. The medication is given in a dose of 5 to 8 mg/kg per day, divided into 2 doses, for 60 days. Benznidazole is FDA approved for the treatment of individuals older than age 2. It has been used off-label in children younger than 2 years of age. The drug is commercially available at http://www.benznidazoletablets.com.

Benznidazole causes multiple minor side effects and several very serious adverse effects. The serious adverse effects include acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, toxic epidermal necrolysis, peripheral neuropathy, marrow suppression, and hepatotoxicity. Benznidazole has been teratogenic and carcinogenic in animal studies and should not be used in pregnancy.^1,3,6

The second drug is nifurtimox. This drug is FDA approved for the treatment of Chagas disease in adults and for newborns and young children. It is commercially available for pharmacies to purchase from several drug wholesalers. Nifurtimox produces reactive oxygen species and toxic intermediates that induce DNA damage and cause cell death of the microorganism. The appropriate oral dose is 8 to 10 mg/kg per day, divided into 3 to 4 equal doses. The duration of treatment is 60 to 90 days, depending on the patient’s response. Like benznidazole, nifurtimox also is highly toxic. Severe adverse effects include a hypersensitivity reaction, anaphylaxis, angioedema, syncope, seizures, and psychosis. Nifurtimox also is teratogenic and is contraindicated in pregnancy.^1,3,6

Clinicians who have questions about the use of either of these medications should contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Parasitic Diseases public inquiries telephone line at (404) 718-4745.

Potential for cure. When either benznidazole or nifurtimox is administered early in the course of a patient’s acute infection, the chance for complete cure is excellent. The same is true for early treatment of the infected neonate. When treatment is delayed, or if it cannot be completed because of intolerable adverse effects, the prognosis for complete cure is diminished.

In adults who have chronic disease, antiparasitic treatment is unlikely to be effective. In such a situation, secondary treatment is directed toward correction of heart failure, control of cardiac rhythm disturbances, and control of GI motility disorders. For both cardiac and GI conditions, medication and surgery may be indicated. Antiparasitic treatment is more effective in children with chronic disease but it is still not uniformly effective.^1,3,5,6

Preventing infection

Vector control is the key to preventing infection in areas where Chagas disease is endemic. One important, but often financially unaffordable, measure is construction of homes with building materials that do not support the growth of the triatomine insects that transmit the disease. A second critical preventive measure is the spraying of mud and thatched homes and surrounding areas with long-lasting insecticides. Pyrethroids are the preferred agents today. Alternative agents include fenitrothion and bendiocarb.¹

Other important preventive measures include:

• screening the blood supply for T cruzi and eliminating units contaminated with the parasite
• screening for the parasite in organs targeted for transplant
• screening infected women of reproductive age in endemic areas and treating those who are positive before they become pregnant; this measure may be almost 95% effective in preventing congenital infection
• using mosquito netting when housing is insecure and air conditioning is not available
• in endemic areas, avoiding unpasteurized fruit drinks and unwashed fruits and vegetables.

Unique considerations in pregnancy

Chagas disease does not cause specific anatomic birth defects. However, infected women are more likely to experience spontaneous abortion, preterm premature rupture of membranes, preterm labor, and fetal growth restriction. Overall, the risk of perinatal transmission is approximately 5%, but it may be higher in women who have a very high parasite load. Infected neonates who remain untreated are at risk for developing the serious sequelae of chronic infection. At least half of neonates who are infected will initially be asymptomatic. Therefore, screening of at-risk neonates is essential in order to implement effective treatment.^3,6

As noted earlier, the usual drugs used for treating Chagas disease should not be used in pregnancy. Nevertheless, it is still important to screen certain individuals for infection and, subsequently, target them and their neonates for treatment immediately following delivery. The following pregnant patients should be screened^5,6:

• women with clinical manifestations that suggest acute or chronic infection
• women from areas of the world in which Chagas disease is endemic, namely, from the southern United States to northern Chile and Argentina. Although the disease is endemic in 21 countries, the countries with the highest prevalence are Bolivia, Argentina, and Paraguay.
• newborns delivered to mothers who have been identified as infected.

As mentioned, several tests are available for screening: PCR, antibody assays, and examination of peripheral blood smears. At least 2 test results should be positive to confirm the diagnosis of infection. Neonates should be followed for 9 to 12 months after delivery to determine if perinatal transmission has occurred. Treatment with antiparasitic drugs is indicated for all infected children.⁵

CASE Continue surveillance during pregnancy, treat after delivery

This patient should not be treated during pregnancy because the 2 major antiparasitic drugs are teratogenic. Antenatally, she should be followed for evidence of preterm labor and fetal growth restriction. She also should have an electrocardiogram and echocardiogram to evaluate for cardiac disease. Immediately after delivery, the patient should be treated with benznidazole for 60 days. Breastfeeding is acceptable. Her neonate should be screened for infection for up to 9 months, following the algorithm outlined earlier (FIGURE 3), and treated if the surveillance tests are positive. ●

CASE Pregnant woman with a suspected parasitic infection

A 20-year-old, previously healthy, primigravid woman at 24 weeks’ gestation immigrated from Bolivia to the United States 3 days ago. On the morning of her international flight, she awoke to discover a small insect bite just below her left eye. She sought medical evaluation because her eyelid is now significantly swollen, and she has a headache, anorexia, fatigue, and a fever of 38.4° C. The examining physician ordered a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for Trypanosoma cruzi, and the test is positive.

• How should this patient be treated during, and after, her delivery?


• Does this infection pose a risk to the newborn baby?


• What type of surveillance and treatment is indicated for the baby?

Chagas disease is common in South America, Central America, and Mexico and is well known to physicians in those countries. Clinicians who practice in the United States are much less familiar with the condition, but it is becoming increasingly common as a result of international travel within the Americas.

In this article, we review the interesting microbiology and epidemiology of Chagas disease, focus on its clinical manifestations, and discuss the most useful diagnostic tests for the illness. We conclude with a summary of preventive and treatment measures, with particular emphasis on managing the disease in pregnancy.

How Chagas disease is transmitted and who is at risk

Chagas disease was named in honor of a Brazilian physician, Carlos Chagas, who first described the condition in 1909. The disease is endemic in South America, Central America, and Mexico, and, recently, its prevalence has increased in the southern United States. Approximately 300,000 people in the United States are infected.^1,2

The illness is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi, and it is also known as American trypanosomiasis. The parasite is spread primarily by the bite of triatomine insects (“kissing bugs”). Approximately 60% of these insects are infected with the parasite. The insects live and thrive in the interspaces of mud walls (adobe homes) and thatched roofs. At night, the insects leave their darkened spaces and feed on the exposed skin of sleeping persons. They are particularly likely to bite the moist skin surfaces near the eye and mouth, and, as they do, they defecate and excrete the parasite into the blood vessels beneath the skin. Within the blood, the trypomastigotes invade various host cells. Inside the host cells, the organism transforms into an amastigote, which is the replicative form of the parasite. After several rounds of replication, the amastigote transforms back into a trypomastigote, bursts from the cell, and goes on to infect other host cells.¹

In addition to transmission by the insect vector, the parasite also can be transmitted by blood transfusion and organ donation. When contaminated blood is transfused, the risk of transmission is approximately 10% to 25% for each unit. Following implementation of effective screening programs by blood banks in Central America, South America, Mexico, and the United States, the risk of transmission from undetected infection is now approximately 1:200,000 per unit.

When a transplant procedure with an infected heart is performed, the risk of transmission is 75% to 100%. For liver transplants, the frequency of transmission is 0% to 29%; for kidney transplants, the risk of transmission is 0% to 19%.

Consumption of contaminated food or drink, particularly nonpasteurized items sold by street vendors, is also an important mechanism of transmission. In addition, transmission can occur as a result of laboratory exposure and by exposure to wild animals (racoons, opossums, marmosets, bats, armadillos) in forested areas. Finally, perinatal transmission now accounts for about 22% of infections. As effective vector control programs have been introduced in endemic areas, the proportion of cases caused by the insect vector has steadily decreased^1-3 (FIGURE 1).

Continue to: Clinical manifestations of Chagas disease...

Clinical manifestations of Chagas disease

Chagas disease occurs in 2 stages, acute and chronic.^1,2,4 In patients who are infected via an insect vector, the acute stage typically begins 1 to 2 weeks after the insect bite. This phase of the illness usually lasts 4 to 8 weeks and almost always resolves without treatment.

Some infected patients will be completely free of symptoms. Others will have manifestations such as:

• fever
• malaise
• headache
• hepatosplenomegaly
• lymphadenopathy
• swollen nodule at the site of infection

—Romaña’s sign, when the lesion is on the eyelid
—Chagoma, when the lesion is elsewhere on the skin.

Fortunately, less than 5% of patients will have severe illness, manifested by myocarditis, pericarditis, encephalitis, or meningitis.

People infected by ingestion of the parasite in food or drink often become more severely ill within 3 weeks. Their clinical manifestations include fever, vomiting, dyspnea, cough, chest pain, abdominal pain, and myalgias. Individuals infected through organ transplant or blood transfusion present more like those infected by the insect vector, but their illness may not develop until several weeks to 5 months after exposure.

In the absence of effective treatment, approximately 40% of patients with acute infection will develop chronic infection, often several decades later. The most common, and most ominous, feature of chronic illness is cardiac disease, experienced by about 30% of patients. Cardiac disease may be manifested as a serious arrhythmia, chest pain, congestive heart failure, or thromboembolism.

The other organ system that is likely to be adversely affected in patients with chronic disease is the gastrointestinal (GI) system, and approximately 10% of chronically infected patients experience this complication. Patients may develop a dilated esophagus, which leads to odynophagia and dysphagia. Diminished motility in other areas of the GI tract also may result in chronic constipation and even bowel obstruction. Chronically infected patients who are immunosuppressed due to HIV infection may become gravely ill as a result of encephalitis and brain abscesses. Cardiac and GI dysfunction is due to the parasite’s massive destruction of nerve endings.

Continue to: Making the diagnosis...

The diagnosis of Chagas disease begins with screening patients who have epidemiologic risk factors that place them at high risk for contracting the infection and at significantly increased risk for morbidity and mortality as a result of either the acute infection or the later chronic stage of infection. A thorough history is vital in the evaluation because the acute illness can have such vague clinical manifestations, and many patients remain asymptomatic until signs of chronic infection appear.

Risk factors that warrant screening include being born in a country endemic for Chagas disease, living in an endemic country for more than 6 months, living with someone who has a confirmed diagnosis, residing in a house made of natural materials (mud walls, thatched roof) in an endemic area, and a history of discovering the triatomine bug in the household.

Screening options include serology, microscopy, and PCR testing. Screening with a single, highly sensitive immunoglobulin G (IgG) serologic test is recommended for nonendemic clinical or community settings. In patients who were born in or who lived in an endemic area for more than 6 months, special consideration should be given to screening women of reproductive age, patients of all ages who were born to a mother with a confirmed diagnosis, individuals who were exposed to a triatomine insect, and people who are immunocompromised.⁵

A positive serologic test should be confirmed with a second assay based on a different antigen. Currently, 4 IgG tests have US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for diagnosis. If a patient has 2 positive serologic tests, the diagnosis is confirmed, regardless of clinical presentation. Discordant results warrant a third test to differentiate between positive and negative results (FIGURE 2).⁵ All patients with a confirmed diagnosis should have an electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, and abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan to assess for cardiac or GI abnormalities.

Organ recipients merit special consideration because, in these individuals, the late stages of Chagas disease may be fatal. In these patients, the preferred diagnostic test is PCR. For transplant patients, monitoring should occur every week for 2 months, bimonthly for the third month, and monthly for 6 months after transplantation. Routine monitoring is not recommended in patients with HIV infection who show no clinical signs of Chagas disease and who are not from endemic areas.

Treatment options

No vaccine or hyperimmune globulin can be used to treat Chagas disease. At this time, 2 antiparasitic drugs are available to treat the condition. One is benznidazole, which inhibits DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis within the microorganism. The medication is given in a dose of 5 to 8 mg/kg per day, divided into 2 doses, for 60 days. Benznidazole is FDA approved for the treatment of individuals older than age 2. It has been used off-label in children younger than 2 years of age. The drug is commercially available at http://www.benznidazoletablets.com.

Benznidazole causes multiple minor side effects and several very serious adverse effects. The serious adverse effects include acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, toxic epidermal necrolysis, peripheral neuropathy, marrow suppression, and hepatotoxicity. Benznidazole has been teratogenic and carcinogenic in animal studies and should not be used in pregnancy.^1,3,6

The second drug is nifurtimox. This drug is FDA approved for the treatment of Chagas disease in adults and for newborns and young children. It is commercially available for pharmacies to purchase from several drug wholesalers. Nifurtimox produces reactive oxygen species and toxic intermediates that induce DNA damage and cause cell death of the microorganism. The appropriate oral dose is 8 to 10 mg/kg per day, divided into 3 to 4 equal doses. The duration of treatment is 60 to 90 days, depending on the patient’s response. Like benznidazole, nifurtimox also is highly toxic. Severe adverse effects include a hypersensitivity reaction, anaphylaxis, angioedema, syncope, seizures, and psychosis. Nifurtimox also is teratogenic and is contraindicated in pregnancy.^1,3,6

Clinicians who have questions about the use of either of these medications should contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Parasitic Diseases public inquiries telephone line at (404) 718-4745.

Potential for cure. When either benznidazole or nifurtimox is administered early in the course of a patient’s acute infection, the chance for complete cure is excellent. The same is true for early treatment of the infected neonate. When treatment is delayed, or if it cannot be completed because of intolerable adverse effects, the prognosis for complete cure is diminished.

In adults who have chronic disease, antiparasitic treatment is unlikely to be effective. In such a situation, secondary treatment is directed toward correction of heart failure, control of cardiac rhythm disturbances, and control of GI motility disorders. For both cardiac and GI conditions, medication and surgery may be indicated. Antiparasitic treatment is more effective in children with chronic disease but it is still not uniformly effective.^1,3,5,6

Preventing infection

Vector control is the key to preventing infection in areas where Chagas disease is endemic. One important, but often financially unaffordable, measure is construction of homes with building materials that do not support the growth of the triatomine insects that transmit the disease. A second critical preventive measure is the spraying of mud and thatched homes and surrounding areas with long-lasting insecticides. Pyrethroids are the preferred agents today. Alternative agents include fenitrothion and bendiocarb.¹

Other important preventive measures include:

• screening the blood supply for T cruzi and eliminating units contaminated with the parasite
• screening for the parasite in organs targeted for transplant
• screening infected women of reproductive age in endemic areas and treating those who are positive before they become pregnant; this measure may be almost 95% effective in preventing congenital infection
• using mosquito netting when housing is insecure and air conditioning is not available
• in endemic areas, avoiding unpasteurized fruit drinks and unwashed fruits and vegetables.

Unique considerations in pregnancy

Chagas disease does not cause specific anatomic birth defects. However, infected women are more likely to experience spontaneous abortion, preterm premature rupture of membranes, preterm labor, and fetal growth restriction. Overall, the risk of perinatal transmission is approximately 5%, but it may be higher in women who have a very high parasite load. Infected neonates who remain untreated are at risk for developing the serious sequelae of chronic infection. At least half of neonates who are infected will initially be asymptomatic. Therefore, screening of at-risk neonates is essential in order to implement effective treatment.^3,6

As noted earlier, the usual drugs used for treating Chagas disease should not be used in pregnancy. Nevertheless, it is still important to screen certain individuals for infection and, subsequently, target them and their neonates for treatment immediately following delivery. The following pregnant patients should be screened^5,6:

• women with clinical manifestations that suggest acute or chronic infection
• women from areas of the world in which Chagas disease is endemic, namely, from the southern United States to northern Chile and Argentina. Although the disease is endemic in 21 countries, the countries with the highest prevalence are Bolivia, Argentina, and Paraguay.
• newborns delivered to mothers who have been identified as infected.

As mentioned, several tests are available for screening: PCR, antibody assays, and examination of peripheral blood smears. At least 2 test results should be positive to confirm the diagnosis of infection. Neonates should be followed for 9 to 12 months after delivery to determine if perinatal transmission has occurred. Treatment with antiparasitic drugs is indicated for all infected children.⁵

CASE Continue surveillance during pregnancy, treat after delivery

This patient should not be treated during pregnancy because the 2 major antiparasitic drugs are teratogenic. Antenatally, she should be followed for evidence of preterm labor and fetal growth restriction. She also should have an electrocardiogram and echocardiogram to evaluate for cardiac disease. Immediately after delivery, the patient should be treated with benznidazole for 60 days. Breastfeeding is acceptable. Her neonate should be screened for infection for up to 9 months, following the algorithm outlined earlier (FIGURE 3), and treated if the surveillance tests are positive. ●

CASE Pregnant woman with a suspected parasitic infection

A 20-year-old, previously healthy, primigravid woman at 24 weeks’ gestation immigrated from Bolivia to the United States 3 days ago. On the morning of her international flight, she awoke to discover a small insect bite just below her left eye. She sought medical evaluation because her eyelid is now significantly swollen, and she has a headache, anorexia, fatigue, and a fever of 38.4° C. The examining physician ordered a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for Trypanosoma cruzi, and the test is positive.

• How should this patient be treated during, and after, her delivery?


• Does this infection pose a risk to the newborn baby?


• What type of surveillance and treatment is indicated for the baby?

Chagas disease is common in South America, Central America, and Mexico and is well known to physicians in those countries. Clinicians who practice in the United States are much less familiar with the condition, but it is becoming increasingly common as a result of international travel within the Americas.

In this article, we review the interesting microbiology and epidemiology of Chagas disease, focus on its clinical manifestations, and discuss the most useful diagnostic tests for the illness. We conclude with a summary of preventive and treatment measures, with particular emphasis on managing the disease in pregnancy.

How Chagas disease is transmitted and who is at risk

Chagas disease was named in honor of a Brazilian physician, Carlos Chagas, who first described the condition in 1909. The disease is endemic in South America, Central America, and Mexico, and, recently, its prevalence has increased in the southern United States. Approximately 300,000 people in the United States are infected.^1,2

The illness is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi, and it is also known as American trypanosomiasis. The parasite is spread primarily by the bite of triatomine insects (“kissing bugs”). Approximately 60% of these insects are infected with the parasite. The insects live and thrive in the interspaces of mud walls (adobe homes) and thatched roofs. At night, the insects leave their darkened spaces and feed on the exposed skin of sleeping persons. They are particularly likely to bite the moist skin surfaces near the eye and mouth, and, as they do, they defecate and excrete the parasite into the blood vessels beneath the skin. Within the blood, the trypomastigotes invade various host cells. Inside the host cells, the organism transforms into an amastigote, which is the replicative form of the parasite. After several rounds of replication, the amastigote transforms back into a trypomastigote, bursts from the cell, and goes on to infect other host cells.¹

In addition to transmission by the insect vector, the parasite also can be transmitted by blood transfusion and organ donation. When contaminated blood is transfused, the risk of transmission is approximately 10% to 25% for each unit. Following implementation of effective screening programs by blood banks in Central America, South America, Mexico, and the United States, the risk of transmission from undetected infection is now approximately 1:200,000 per unit.

When a transplant procedure with an infected heart is performed, the risk of transmission is 75% to 100%. For liver transplants, the frequency of transmission is 0% to 29%; for kidney transplants, the risk of transmission is 0% to 19%.

Consumption of contaminated food or drink, particularly nonpasteurized items sold by street vendors, is also an important mechanism of transmission. In addition, transmission can occur as a result of laboratory exposure and by exposure to wild animals (racoons, opossums, marmosets, bats, armadillos) in forested areas. Finally, perinatal transmission now accounts for about 22% of infections. As effective vector control programs have been introduced in endemic areas, the proportion of cases caused by the insect vector has steadily decreased^1-3 (FIGURE 1).

Continue to: Clinical manifestations of Chagas disease...

Clinical manifestations of Chagas disease

Chagas disease occurs in 2 stages, acute and chronic.^1,2,4 In patients who are infected via an insect vector, the acute stage typically begins 1 to 2 weeks after the insect bite. This phase of the illness usually lasts 4 to 8 weeks and almost always resolves without treatment.

Some infected patients will be completely free of symptoms. Others will have manifestations such as:

• fever
• malaise
• headache
• hepatosplenomegaly
• lymphadenopathy
• swollen nodule at the site of infection

—Romaña’s sign, when the lesion is on the eyelid
—Chagoma, when the lesion is elsewhere on the skin.

Fortunately, less than 5% of patients will have severe illness, manifested by myocarditis, pericarditis, encephalitis, or meningitis.

People infected by ingestion of the parasite in food or drink often become more severely ill within 3 weeks. Their clinical manifestations include fever, vomiting, dyspnea, cough, chest pain, abdominal pain, and myalgias. Individuals infected through organ transplant or blood transfusion present more like those infected by the insect vector, but their illness may not develop until several weeks to 5 months after exposure.

In the absence of effective treatment, approximately 40% of patients with acute infection will develop chronic infection, often several decades later. The most common, and most ominous, feature of chronic illness is cardiac disease, experienced by about 30% of patients. Cardiac disease may be manifested as a serious arrhythmia, chest pain, congestive heart failure, or thromboembolism.

The other organ system that is likely to be adversely affected in patients with chronic disease is the gastrointestinal (GI) system, and approximately 10% of chronically infected patients experience this complication. Patients may develop a dilated esophagus, which leads to odynophagia and dysphagia. Diminished motility in other areas of the GI tract also may result in chronic constipation and even bowel obstruction. Chronically infected patients who are immunosuppressed due to HIV infection may become gravely ill as a result of encephalitis and brain abscesses. Cardiac and GI dysfunction is due to the parasite’s massive destruction of nerve endings.

Continue to: Making the diagnosis...

The diagnosis of Chagas disease begins with screening patients who have epidemiologic risk factors that place them at high risk for contracting the infection and at significantly increased risk for morbidity and mortality as a result of either the acute infection or the later chronic stage of infection. A thorough history is vital in the evaluation because the acute illness can have such vague clinical manifestations, and many patients remain asymptomatic until signs of chronic infection appear.

Risk factors that warrant screening include being born in a country endemic for Chagas disease, living in an endemic country for more than 6 months, living with someone who has a confirmed diagnosis, residing in a house made of natural materials (mud walls, thatched roof) in an endemic area, and a history of discovering the triatomine bug in the household.

Screening options include serology, microscopy, and PCR testing. Screening with a single, highly sensitive immunoglobulin G (IgG) serologic test is recommended for nonendemic clinical or community settings. In patients who were born in or who lived in an endemic area for more than 6 months, special consideration should be given to screening women of reproductive age, patients of all ages who were born to a mother with a confirmed diagnosis, individuals who were exposed to a triatomine insect, and people who are immunocompromised.⁵

A positive serologic test should be confirmed with a second assay based on a different antigen. Currently, 4 IgG tests have US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for diagnosis. If a patient has 2 positive serologic tests, the diagnosis is confirmed, regardless of clinical presentation. Discordant results warrant a third test to differentiate between positive and negative results (FIGURE 2).⁵ All patients with a confirmed diagnosis should have an electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, and abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan to assess for cardiac or GI abnormalities.

Organ recipients merit special consideration because, in these individuals, the late stages of Chagas disease may be fatal. In these patients, the preferred diagnostic test is PCR. For transplant patients, monitoring should occur every week for 2 months, bimonthly for the third month, and monthly for 6 months after transplantation. Routine monitoring is not recommended in patients with HIV infection who show no clinical signs of Chagas disease and who are not from endemic areas.

Treatment options

No vaccine or hyperimmune globulin can be used to treat Chagas disease. At this time, 2 antiparasitic drugs are available to treat the condition. One is benznidazole, which inhibits DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis within the microorganism. The medication is given in a dose of 5 to 8 mg/kg per day, divided into 2 doses, for 60 days. Benznidazole is FDA approved for the treatment of individuals older than age 2. It has been used off-label in children younger than 2 years of age. The drug is commercially available at http://www.benznidazoletablets.com.

Benznidazole causes multiple minor side effects and several very serious adverse effects. The serious adverse effects include acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, toxic epidermal necrolysis, peripheral neuropathy, marrow suppression, and hepatotoxicity. Benznidazole has been teratogenic and carcinogenic in animal studies and should not be used in pregnancy.^1,3,6

The second drug is nifurtimox. This drug is FDA approved for the treatment of Chagas disease in adults and for newborns and young children. It is commercially available for pharmacies to purchase from several drug wholesalers. Nifurtimox produces reactive oxygen species and toxic intermediates that induce DNA damage and cause cell death of the microorganism. The appropriate oral dose is 8 to 10 mg/kg per day, divided into 3 to 4 equal doses. The duration of treatment is 60 to 90 days, depending on the patient’s response. Like benznidazole, nifurtimox also is highly toxic. Severe adverse effects include a hypersensitivity reaction, anaphylaxis, angioedema, syncope, seizures, and psychosis. Nifurtimox also is teratogenic and is contraindicated in pregnancy.^1,3,6

Clinicians who have questions about the use of either of these medications should contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Parasitic Diseases public inquiries telephone line at (404) 718-4745.

Potential for cure. When either benznidazole or nifurtimox is administered early in the course of a patient’s acute infection, the chance for complete cure is excellent. The same is true for early treatment of the infected neonate. When treatment is delayed, or if it cannot be completed because of intolerable adverse effects, the prognosis for complete cure is diminished.

In adults who have chronic disease, antiparasitic treatment is unlikely to be effective. In such a situation, secondary treatment is directed toward correction of heart failure, control of cardiac rhythm disturbances, and control of GI motility disorders. For both cardiac and GI conditions, medication and surgery may be indicated. Antiparasitic treatment is more effective in children with chronic disease but it is still not uniformly effective.^1,3,5,6

Preventing infection

Vector control is the key to preventing infection in areas where Chagas disease is endemic. One important, but often financially unaffordable, measure is construction of homes with building materials that do not support the growth of the triatomine insects that transmit the disease. A second critical preventive measure is the spraying of mud and thatched homes and surrounding areas with long-lasting insecticides. Pyrethroids are the preferred agents today. Alternative agents include fenitrothion and bendiocarb.¹

Other important preventive measures include:

• screening the blood supply for T cruzi and eliminating units contaminated with the parasite
• screening for the parasite in organs targeted for transplant
• screening infected women of reproductive age in endemic areas and treating those who are positive before they become pregnant; this measure may be almost 95% effective in preventing congenital infection
• using mosquito netting when housing is insecure and air conditioning is not available
• in endemic areas, avoiding unpasteurized fruit drinks and unwashed fruits and vegetables.

Unique considerations in pregnancy

Chagas disease does not cause specific anatomic birth defects. However, infected women are more likely to experience spontaneous abortion, preterm premature rupture of membranes, preterm labor, and fetal growth restriction. Overall, the risk of perinatal transmission is approximately 5%, but it may be higher in women who have a very high parasite load. Infected neonates who remain untreated are at risk for developing the serious sequelae of chronic infection. At least half of neonates who are infected will initially be asymptomatic. Therefore, screening of at-risk neonates is essential in order to implement effective treatment.^3,6

As noted earlier, the usual drugs used for treating Chagas disease should not be used in pregnancy. Nevertheless, it is still important to screen certain individuals for infection and, subsequently, target them and their neonates for treatment immediately following delivery. The following pregnant patients should be screened^5,6:

• women with clinical manifestations that suggest acute or chronic infection
• women from areas of the world in which Chagas disease is endemic, namely, from the southern United States to northern Chile and Argentina. Although the disease is endemic in 21 countries, the countries with the highest prevalence are Bolivia, Argentina, and Paraguay.
• newborns delivered to mothers who have been identified as infected.

As mentioned, several tests are available for screening: PCR, antibody assays, and examination of peripheral blood smears. At least 2 test results should be positive to confirm the diagnosis of infection. Neonates should be followed for 9 to 12 months after delivery to determine if perinatal transmission has occurred. Treatment with antiparasitic drugs is indicated for all infected children.⁵

CASE Continue surveillance during pregnancy, treat after delivery

This patient should not be treated during pregnancy because the 2 major antiparasitic drugs are teratogenic. Antenatally, she should be followed for evidence of preterm labor and fetal growth restriction. She also should have an electrocardiogram and echocardiogram to evaluate for cardiac disease. Immediately after delivery, the patient should be treated with benznidazole for 60 days. Breastfeeding is acceptable. Her neonate should be screened for infection for up to 9 months, following the algorithm outlined earlier (FIGURE 3), and treated if the surveillance tests are positive. ●

New trial data from drugmaker Pfizer shows promising results of a vaccine given to mothers during pregnancy that later protects infants in their first months from the worst effects of respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV.

Pfizer will apply for FDA approval by the end of the year, the company said in a statement Nov. 1.

Trial results are so promising that – after talking with government regulators – the company will stop enrolling new people in the study.

Specifically, the company reported that the vaccine prevented severe illness particularly well during the first 90 days of life, with measurable protection against severe illness continuing through 6 months of age. (That period is when infants are the most fragile if they get sick with RSV.)

RSV is a respiratory illness than can affect anyone, usually resulting in no symptoms or those similar to the common cold. But it can be particularly dangerous – and even deadly – for babies and for people over the age of 65. Pfizer and another drug company, GSK, are developing promising vaccines for older adults, the Washington Post reported.

RSV is the leading cause of hospitalization for infants, the Post noted.

The Pfizer study, called MATISSE, enrolled 7,400 pregnant women in 18 countries worldwide. Those who received the vaccine were given it during the late second to third trimester of pregnancy. Women in the study were monitored for safety through the rest of their pregnancy and 6 months after their children were born. Infants were monitored for at least 1 year for safety and effectiveness; more than half of them were monitored for 2 years.

The Pfizer vaccine works by passing maternal antibodies to the infant during pregnancy, the Post reported, noting that other vaccines transmitted via maternal immunization include those for influenza, diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.

Annually, RSV has a devastating impact on young children, hospitalizing tens of thousands and causing up to 300 deaths, data show.

For every 100 children who get RSV under 6 months of age, one or two of them may need to be hospitalized, according to the CDC. Those hospitalized infants may need oxygen, intubation, or even mechanical ventilation to help with breathing.

“Most improve with this type of supportive care and are discharged in a few days,” the CDC said.

“I think this is a big step for protecting babies against RSV and improving overall lung health,” vaccine researcher Barney Graham, PhD, told the Post. “Overall, it’s an exciting time for RSV. It’s also a troubling time, because you see how the patterns of infection have been changed by COVID, and we’re having an earlier, bigger season this year than we have for a couple of years – and it’s causing a lot of hospitalization and misery for people.”

As many as four RSV vaccines may have applications submitted to the FDA in 2022, according to CNN. Also in development is an antibody shot given to infants just after they are born, the news outlet reported.

Pfizer’s data, announced Tuesday, has not yet been published or peer-reviewed, but the company said it is seeking peer-reviewed publication.

“We are thrilled by these data, as this is the first-ever investigational vaccine shown to help protect newborns against severe RSV-related respiratory illness immediately at birth,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, Pfizer chief scientific officer for vaccine research & development, said in a statement. “We look forward to working with the FDA and other regulatory agencies to bring this vaccine candidate to expectant mothers to help protect their infants against severe RSV during their most vulnerable first six months of life, which has the highest burden of RSV illness in infants.”

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

New trial data from drugmaker Pfizer shows promising results of a vaccine given to mothers during pregnancy that later protects infants in their first months from the worst effects of respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV.

Pfizer will apply for FDA approval by the end of the year, the company said in a statement Nov. 1.

Trial results are so promising that – after talking with government regulators – the company will stop enrolling new people in the study.

Specifically, the company reported that the vaccine prevented severe illness particularly well during the first 90 days of life, with measurable protection against severe illness continuing through 6 months of age. (That period is when infants are the most fragile if they get sick with RSV.)

RSV is a respiratory illness than can affect anyone, usually resulting in no symptoms or those similar to the common cold. But it can be particularly dangerous – and even deadly – for babies and for people over the age of 65. Pfizer and another drug company, GSK, are developing promising vaccines for older adults, the Washington Post reported.

RSV is the leading cause of hospitalization for infants, the Post noted.

The Pfizer study, called MATISSE, enrolled 7,400 pregnant women in 18 countries worldwide. Those who received the vaccine were given it during the late second to third trimester of pregnancy. Women in the study were monitored for safety through the rest of their pregnancy and 6 months after their children were born. Infants were monitored for at least 1 year for safety and effectiveness; more than half of them were monitored for 2 years.

The Pfizer vaccine works by passing maternal antibodies to the infant during pregnancy, the Post reported, noting that other vaccines transmitted via maternal immunization include those for influenza, diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.

Annually, RSV has a devastating impact on young children, hospitalizing tens of thousands and causing up to 300 deaths, data show.

For every 100 children who get RSV under 6 months of age, one or two of them may need to be hospitalized, according to the CDC. Those hospitalized infants may need oxygen, intubation, or even mechanical ventilation to help with breathing.

“Most improve with this type of supportive care and are discharged in a few days,” the CDC said.

“I think this is a big step for protecting babies against RSV and improving overall lung health,” vaccine researcher Barney Graham, PhD, told the Post. “Overall, it’s an exciting time for RSV. It’s also a troubling time, because you see how the patterns of infection have been changed by COVID, and we’re having an earlier, bigger season this year than we have for a couple of years – and it’s causing a lot of hospitalization and misery for people.”

As many as four RSV vaccines may have applications submitted to the FDA in 2022, according to CNN. Also in development is an antibody shot given to infants just after they are born, the news outlet reported.

Pfizer’s data, announced Tuesday, has not yet been published or peer-reviewed, but the company said it is seeking peer-reviewed publication.

“We are thrilled by these data, as this is the first-ever investigational vaccine shown to help protect newborns against severe RSV-related respiratory illness immediately at birth,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, Pfizer chief scientific officer for vaccine research & development, said in a statement. “We look forward to working with the FDA and other regulatory agencies to bring this vaccine candidate to expectant mothers to help protect their infants against severe RSV during their most vulnerable first six months of life, which has the highest burden of RSV illness in infants.”

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

New trial data from drugmaker Pfizer shows promising results of a vaccine given to mothers during pregnancy that later protects infants in their first months from the worst effects of respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV.

Pfizer will apply for FDA approval by the end of the year, the company said in a statement Nov. 1.

Trial results are so promising that – after talking with government regulators – the company will stop enrolling new people in the study.

Specifically, the company reported that the vaccine prevented severe illness particularly well during the first 90 days of life, with measurable protection against severe illness continuing through 6 months of age. (That period is when infants are the most fragile if they get sick with RSV.)

RSV is a respiratory illness than can affect anyone, usually resulting in no symptoms or those similar to the common cold. But it can be particularly dangerous – and even deadly – for babies and for people over the age of 65. Pfizer and another drug company, GSK, are developing promising vaccines for older adults, the Washington Post reported.

RSV is the leading cause of hospitalization for infants, the Post noted.

The Pfizer study, called MATISSE, enrolled 7,400 pregnant women in 18 countries worldwide. Those who received the vaccine were given it during the late second to third trimester of pregnancy. Women in the study were monitored for safety through the rest of their pregnancy and 6 months after their children were born. Infants were monitored for at least 1 year for safety and effectiveness; more than half of them were monitored for 2 years.

The Pfizer vaccine works by passing maternal antibodies to the infant during pregnancy, the Post reported, noting that other vaccines transmitted via maternal immunization include those for influenza, diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.

Annually, RSV has a devastating impact on young children, hospitalizing tens of thousands and causing up to 300 deaths, data show.

For every 100 children who get RSV under 6 months of age, one or two of them may need to be hospitalized, according to the CDC. Those hospitalized infants may need oxygen, intubation, or even mechanical ventilation to help with breathing.

“Most improve with this type of supportive care and are discharged in a few days,” the CDC said.

“I think this is a big step for protecting babies against RSV and improving overall lung health,” vaccine researcher Barney Graham, PhD, told the Post. “Overall, it’s an exciting time for RSV. It’s also a troubling time, because you see how the patterns of infection have been changed by COVID, and we’re having an earlier, bigger season this year than we have for a couple of years – and it’s causing a lot of hospitalization and misery for people.”

As many as four RSV vaccines may have applications submitted to the FDA in 2022, according to CNN. Also in development is an antibody shot given to infants just after they are born, the news outlet reported.

Pfizer’s data, announced Tuesday, has not yet been published or peer-reviewed, but the company said it is seeking peer-reviewed publication.

“We are thrilled by these data, as this is the first-ever investigational vaccine shown to help protect newborns against severe RSV-related respiratory illness immediately at birth,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, Pfizer chief scientific officer for vaccine research & development, said in a statement. “We look forward to working with the FDA and other regulatory agencies to bring this vaccine candidate to expectant mothers to help protect their infants against severe RSV during their most vulnerable first six months of life, which has the highest burden of RSV illness in infants.”

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

Estimated travel time to abortion facilities in the United States has increased significantly since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to results from an original investigation published online in JAMA.

In the wake of the ruling, many clinics have closed and now 33.3% of females of reproductive age live more than an hour from an abortion facility, more than double the 14.6% who lived that far before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization court ruling, the paper states.

A 2022 study found that when people live 50 miles or more from an abortion facility they “were more likely to still be seeking an abortion on a 4-week follow-up than those who lived closer to an abortion facility,” wrote the authors, led by Benjamin Rader, MPH, from the Computational Epidemiology Lab at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Of 1,134 abortion facilities in the United States, 749 were considered active before the ruling and 671 were considered active in a simulated post-Dobbs period.
 

More than 15 states have total or partial bans

The researchers accounted for the closure of abortion facilities in states with total bans or 6-week abortion bans, compared with the period before the ruling, “during which all facilities providing abortions in 2021 were considered active.” The authors noted that more than 15 states have such bans.

Researchers found median and mean travel times to abortion facilities were estimated to be 10.9 minutes (interquartile ratio, 4.3-32.4) and 27.8 (standard deviation, 42.0) minutes before the ruling and used a paired sample t test (P < .001) to estimate the increase to a median of 17.0 (IQR, 4.9-124.5) minutes and a mean 100.4 (SD, 161.5) minutes after the ruling.

The numbers “highlight the catastrophe in terms of where we are,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, professor, obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview.

Behind those numbers, she said, are brick walls for people who can’t take off work to drive that far or can’t leave their responsibilities of care for dependents or don’t have a car or even a driver’s license. It also calculates only land travel (car or public transportation) and doesn’t capture the financial and logistical burdens for some to fly to other states.

Dr. Cansino serves on the board of the Society of Family Planning, which publishes #WeCount, a national reporting effort that attempts to capture the effect of the Dobbs decision on abortion access. In a report published Oct. 28, #WeCount stated the numbers show that since the decision, there were 5,270 fewer abortions in July and 5,400 fewer in August, for a total of 10,670 fewer people in the United States who had abortions in the 2 months.

For Dr. Cansino, the numbers are only one measure of the wider problem.

“If it affects one person, it’s really the spirit of the consequence,” she said. “It’s difficult to wrap your mind around these numbers but the bottom line is that someone other than the person experiencing this health issue is making a decision for them.

“You will see physicians leaving states,” she said, “because their hands are tied in giving care.”
 

Glimpse of future from Texas example

The experience of abortion restrictions in Texas, described in another original investigation published in JAMA, provides a window into what could happen as access to abortions continues to decrease.

Texas has banned abortions after detectable embryonic cardiac activity since Sept. 1, 2021. Researchers obtained data on 80,107 abortions performed between September 2020 and February 2022.

In the first month following implementation of the Texas law, SB-8, the number of abortions in Texas dropped by 50%, compared with September 2020, and many pregnant Texas residents traveled out of state for abortion care.

But out-of-state abortions didn’t fully offset the overall drop in facility-based abortions.

“This decrease in facility-based abortion care suggests that many Texas residents continued their pregnancies, traveled beyond a neighboring state, or self-managed their abortion,” the authors wrote.
 

Increased time comes with costs

Sarah W. Prager, MD, professor in obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the family planning division, explained that the travel time has to be seen in addition to the time it takes to complete the procedure.

Depending on state law, an abortion may take more than one visit to a clinic, which may mean adding lodging costs and overnight hours, or taking time off work, or finding childcare.

“A typical time to be at a clinic is upwards of 6 hours,” Dr. Prager explained, including paperwork, counseling, consent, the procedure, and recovery. That time is growing as active clinics overbook with others closing, she noted.

“We already know that 75% of people getting abortions are economically burdened at baseline. Gas is super expensive so the farther they have to drive – if they have their own car – that’s going to be expensive,” she noted.

In Washington, she said, abortion access is centralized in the western part of the state and located primarily between Seattle and Olympia. Though Oregon to the south has some of the nation’s most supportive laws for abortion, the other surrounding states have restrictive laws.

People in Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana all have restrictive access, she noted, so people seeking abortions from those states have long distances to drive to western Washington and Oregon.

“Even for people living in eastern Washington, they are sometimes driving hours to get abortion care,” she said. “We’re really looking at health care that is dictated by geography, not by evidence, medicine, or science.”

The study by Dr. White and colleagues was supported by grants from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and Collaborative for Gender + Reproductive Equity, as well as a center grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the University of Texas at Austin for providing data during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from Merck and Gynuity Health Projects and personal fees from Merck and Organon outside the submitted work; another reported being named plaintiff in the case Planned Parenthood of Montana v State of Montana, a lawsuit challenging abortion restrictions in that state. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager reported no relevant financial relationships.

Estimated travel time to abortion facilities in the United States has increased significantly since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to results from an original investigation published online in JAMA.

In the wake of the ruling, many clinics have closed and now 33.3% of females of reproductive age live more than an hour from an abortion facility, more than double the 14.6% who lived that far before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization court ruling, the paper states.

A 2022 study found that when people live 50 miles or more from an abortion facility they “were more likely to still be seeking an abortion on a 4-week follow-up than those who lived closer to an abortion facility,” wrote the authors, led by Benjamin Rader, MPH, from the Computational Epidemiology Lab at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Of 1,134 abortion facilities in the United States, 749 were considered active before the ruling and 671 were considered active in a simulated post-Dobbs period.
 

More than 15 states have total or partial bans

The researchers accounted for the closure of abortion facilities in states with total bans or 6-week abortion bans, compared with the period before the ruling, “during which all facilities providing abortions in 2021 were considered active.” The authors noted that more than 15 states have such bans.

Researchers found median and mean travel times to abortion facilities were estimated to be 10.9 minutes (interquartile ratio, 4.3-32.4) and 27.8 (standard deviation, 42.0) minutes before the ruling and used a paired sample t test (P < .001) to estimate the increase to a median of 17.0 (IQR, 4.9-124.5) minutes and a mean 100.4 (SD, 161.5) minutes after the ruling.

The numbers “highlight the catastrophe in terms of where we are,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, professor, obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview.

Behind those numbers, she said, are brick walls for people who can’t take off work to drive that far or can’t leave their responsibilities of care for dependents or don’t have a car or even a driver’s license. It also calculates only land travel (car or public transportation) and doesn’t capture the financial and logistical burdens for some to fly to other states.

Dr. Cansino serves on the board of the Society of Family Planning, which publishes #WeCount, a national reporting effort that attempts to capture the effect of the Dobbs decision on abortion access. In a report published Oct. 28, #WeCount stated the numbers show that since the decision, there were 5,270 fewer abortions in July and 5,400 fewer in August, for a total of 10,670 fewer people in the United States who had abortions in the 2 months.

For Dr. Cansino, the numbers are only one measure of the wider problem.

“If it affects one person, it’s really the spirit of the consequence,” she said. “It’s difficult to wrap your mind around these numbers but the bottom line is that someone other than the person experiencing this health issue is making a decision for them.

“You will see physicians leaving states,” she said, “because their hands are tied in giving care.”
 

Glimpse of future from Texas example

The experience of abortion restrictions in Texas, described in another original investigation published in JAMA, provides a window into what could happen as access to abortions continues to decrease.

Texas has banned abortions after detectable embryonic cardiac activity since Sept. 1, 2021. Researchers obtained data on 80,107 abortions performed between September 2020 and February 2022.

In the first month following implementation of the Texas law, SB-8, the number of abortions in Texas dropped by 50%, compared with September 2020, and many pregnant Texas residents traveled out of state for abortion care.

But out-of-state abortions didn’t fully offset the overall drop in facility-based abortions.

“This decrease in facility-based abortion care suggests that many Texas residents continued their pregnancies, traveled beyond a neighboring state, or self-managed their abortion,” the authors wrote.
 

Increased time comes with costs

Sarah W. Prager, MD, professor in obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the family planning division, explained that the travel time has to be seen in addition to the time it takes to complete the procedure.

Depending on state law, an abortion may take more than one visit to a clinic, which may mean adding lodging costs and overnight hours, or taking time off work, or finding childcare.

“A typical time to be at a clinic is upwards of 6 hours,” Dr. Prager explained, including paperwork, counseling, consent, the procedure, and recovery. That time is growing as active clinics overbook with others closing, she noted.

“We already know that 75% of people getting abortions are economically burdened at baseline. Gas is super expensive so the farther they have to drive – if they have their own car – that’s going to be expensive,” she noted.

In Washington, she said, abortion access is centralized in the western part of the state and located primarily between Seattle and Olympia. Though Oregon to the south has some of the nation’s most supportive laws for abortion, the other surrounding states have restrictive laws.

People in Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana all have restrictive access, she noted, so people seeking abortions from those states have long distances to drive to western Washington and Oregon.

“Even for people living in eastern Washington, they are sometimes driving hours to get abortion care,” she said. “We’re really looking at health care that is dictated by geography, not by evidence, medicine, or science.”

The study by Dr. White and colleagues was supported by grants from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and Collaborative for Gender + Reproductive Equity, as well as a center grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the University of Texas at Austin for providing data during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from Merck and Gynuity Health Projects and personal fees from Merck and Organon outside the submitted work; another reported being named plaintiff in the case Planned Parenthood of Montana v State of Montana, a lawsuit challenging abortion restrictions in that state. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager reported no relevant financial relationships.

Estimated travel time to abortion facilities in the United States has increased significantly since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to results from an original investigation published online in JAMA.

In the wake of the ruling, many clinics have closed and now 33.3% of females of reproductive age live more than an hour from an abortion facility, more than double the 14.6% who lived that far before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization court ruling, the paper states.

A 2022 study found that when people live 50 miles or more from an abortion facility they “were more likely to still be seeking an abortion on a 4-week follow-up than those who lived closer to an abortion facility,” wrote the authors, led by Benjamin Rader, MPH, from the Computational Epidemiology Lab at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Of 1,134 abortion facilities in the United States, 749 were considered active before the ruling and 671 were considered active in a simulated post-Dobbs period.
 

More than 15 states have total or partial bans

The researchers accounted for the closure of abortion facilities in states with total bans or 6-week abortion bans, compared with the period before the ruling, “during which all facilities providing abortions in 2021 were considered active.” The authors noted that more than 15 states have such bans.

Researchers found median and mean travel times to abortion facilities were estimated to be 10.9 minutes (interquartile ratio, 4.3-32.4) and 27.8 (standard deviation, 42.0) minutes before the ruling and used a paired sample t test (P < .001) to estimate the increase to a median of 17.0 (IQR, 4.9-124.5) minutes and a mean 100.4 (SD, 161.5) minutes after the ruling.

The numbers “highlight the catastrophe in terms of where we are,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, professor, obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview.

Behind those numbers, she said, are brick walls for people who can’t take off work to drive that far or can’t leave their responsibilities of care for dependents or don’t have a car or even a driver’s license. It also calculates only land travel (car or public transportation) and doesn’t capture the financial and logistical burdens for some to fly to other states.

Dr. Cansino serves on the board of the Society of Family Planning, which publishes #WeCount, a national reporting effort that attempts to capture the effect of the Dobbs decision on abortion access. In a report published Oct. 28, #WeCount stated the numbers show that since the decision, there were 5,270 fewer abortions in July and 5,400 fewer in August, for a total of 10,670 fewer people in the United States who had abortions in the 2 months.

For Dr. Cansino, the numbers are only one measure of the wider problem.

“If it affects one person, it’s really the spirit of the consequence,” she said. “It’s difficult to wrap your mind around these numbers but the bottom line is that someone other than the person experiencing this health issue is making a decision for them.

“You will see physicians leaving states,” she said, “because their hands are tied in giving care.”
 

Glimpse of future from Texas example

The experience of abortion restrictions in Texas, described in another original investigation published in JAMA, provides a window into what could happen as access to abortions continues to decrease.

Texas has banned abortions after detectable embryonic cardiac activity since Sept. 1, 2021. Researchers obtained data on 80,107 abortions performed between September 2020 and February 2022.

In the first month following implementation of the Texas law, SB-8, the number of abortions in Texas dropped by 50%, compared with September 2020, and many pregnant Texas residents traveled out of state for abortion care.

But out-of-state abortions didn’t fully offset the overall drop in facility-based abortions.

“This decrease in facility-based abortion care suggests that many Texas residents continued their pregnancies, traveled beyond a neighboring state, or self-managed their abortion,” the authors wrote.
 

Increased time comes with costs

Sarah W. Prager, MD, professor in obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the family planning division, explained that the travel time has to be seen in addition to the time it takes to complete the procedure.

Depending on state law, an abortion may take more than one visit to a clinic, which may mean adding lodging costs and overnight hours, or taking time off work, or finding childcare.

“A typical time to be at a clinic is upwards of 6 hours,” Dr. Prager explained, including paperwork, counseling, consent, the procedure, and recovery. That time is growing as active clinics overbook with others closing, she noted.

“We already know that 75% of people getting abortions are economically burdened at baseline. Gas is super expensive so the farther they have to drive – if they have their own car – that’s going to be expensive,” she noted.

In Washington, she said, abortion access is centralized in the western part of the state and located primarily between Seattle and Olympia. Though Oregon to the south has some of the nation’s most supportive laws for abortion, the other surrounding states have restrictive laws.

People in Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana all have restrictive access, she noted, so people seeking abortions from those states have long distances to drive to western Washington and Oregon.

“Even for people living in eastern Washington, they are sometimes driving hours to get abortion care,” she said. “We’re really looking at health care that is dictated by geography, not by evidence, medicine, or science.”

The study by Dr. White and colleagues was supported by grants from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and Collaborative for Gender + Reproductive Equity, as well as a center grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the University of Texas at Austin for providing data during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from Merck and Gynuity Health Projects and personal fees from Merck and Organon outside the submitted work; another reported being named plaintiff in the case Planned Parenthood of Montana v State of Montana, a lawsuit challenging abortion restrictions in that state. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager reported no relevant financial relationships.

Richards and colleagues explored the effects of aspirin prophylaxis in women with chronic hypertension. They did not detect a lowered risk for preeclampsia but did note a significantly decreased risk for preterm birth in the aspirin group. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine studies (including retrospective cohort and randomized controlled trials). The mixed quality of the source data did limit the meta-analysis. However, this finding suggests that further research is warranted, and we may have a new role for aspirin in helping to decrease preterm birth in women with chronic hypertension.

Cleary and colleagues investigated the use of 30 mg oral nifedipine ER given every 24 hours until delivery in patients with preE with SF. In this randomized, triple-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, 110 patients were randomly assigned to nifedipine treatment or placebo. The results suggest a role for this medication early in the treatment of preE with SF, as the treated patients were much less likely to require acute therapy for severe-range blood pressure. The researchers also noted a trend toward fewer cesarean deliveries (20.8% vs 34.7%) and lower neonatal intensive care unit admissions (29.1% vs 47.1%) in the nifedipine ER group. This favors the use of nifedipine ER in patients with preE with SF.

Stewart and colleagues examined the more common morbidities associated with MTOP after 20 weeks estimated gestational age using a 10-year retrospective cohort study involving 407 patients. They found that 99% of the women had a successful vaginal delivery; however, 25% had some morbidity. Additionally, 16% of the women needed manual removal of placental tissue, 11% had postpartum hemorrhage, and 1.3% experienced severe maternal morbidity (including amniotic fluid embolism), but no maternal deaths occurred. Increased surveillance for postpartum hemorrhage in this patient population should be considered.

Righini and colleagues provide reassurance regarding a commonly used test to rule out pulmonary embolism in pregnant women. They present ancillary data from a prospective management outcome study of 149 women who underwent CT pulmonary angiography testing in pregnancy. There have been concerns raised regarding potential harmful effects related to intravenous iodinated contrast agents on thyroid function. None of the infants born to these patients had evidence of neonatal hypothyroidism (assessed via thyroid-stimulating hormone measurements). This gives reassurance that the use of CT pulmonary angiography testing for pulmonary embolism in pregnancy is safe.

Richards and colleagues explored the effects of aspirin prophylaxis in women with chronic hypertension. They did not detect a lowered risk for preeclampsia but did note a significantly decreased risk for preterm birth in the aspirin group. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine studies (including retrospective cohort and randomized controlled trials). The mixed quality of the source data did limit the meta-analysis. However, this finding suggests that further research is warranted, and we may have a new role for aspirin in helping to decrease preterm birth in women with chronic hypertension.

Cleary and colleagues investigated the use of 30 mg oral nifedipine ER given every 24 hours until delivery in patients with preE with SF. In this randomized, triple-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, 110 patients were randomly assigned to nifedipine treatment or placebo. The results suggest a role for this medication early in the treatment of preE with SF, as the treated patients were much less likely to require acute therapy for severe-range blood pressure. The researchers also noted a trend toward fewer cesarean deliveries (20.8% vs 34.7%) and lower neonatal intensive care unit admissions (29.1% vs 47.1%) in the nifedipine ER group. This favors the use of nifedipine ER in patients with preE with SF.

Stewart and colleagues examined the more common morbidities associated with MTOP after 20 weeks estimated gestational age using a 10-year retrospective cohort study involving 407 patients. They found that 99% of the women had a successful vaginal delivery; however, 25% had some morbidity. Additionally, 16% of the women needed manual removal of placental tissue, 11% had postpartum hemorrhage, and 1.3% experienced severe maternal morbidity (including amniotic fluid embolism), but no maternal deaths occurred. Increased surveillance for postpartum hemorrhage in this patient population should be considered.

Righini and colleagues provide reassurance regarding a commonly used test to rule out pulmonary embolism in pregnant women. They present ancillary data from a prospective management outcome study of 149 women who underwent CT pulmonary angiography testing in pregnancy. There have been concerns raised regarding potential harmful effects related to intravenous iodinated contrast agents on thyroid function. None of the infants born to these patients had evidence of neonatal hypothyroidism (assessed via thyroid-stimulating hormone measurements). This gives reassurance that the use of CT pulmonary angiography testing for pulmonary embolism in pregnancy is safe.

Richards and colleagues explored the effects of aspirin prophylaxis in women with chronic hypertension. They did not detect a lowered risk for preeclampsia but did note a significantly decreased risk for preterm birth in the aspirin group. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine studies (including retrospective cohort and randomized controlled trials). The mixed quality of the source data did limit the meta-analysis. However, this finding suggests that further research is warranted, and we may have a new role for aspirin in helping to decrease preterm birth in women with chronic hypertension.

Cleary and colleagues investigated the use of 30 mg oral nifedipine ER given every 24 hours until delivery in patients with preE with SF. In this randomized, triple-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, 110 patients were randomly assigned to nifedipine treatment or placebo. The results suggest a role for this medication early in the treatment of preE with SF, as the treated patients were much less likely to require acute therapy for severe-range blood pressure. The researchers also noted a trend toward fewer cesarean deliveries (20.8% vs 34.7%) and lower neonatal intensive care unit admissions (29.1% vs 47.1%) in the nifedipine ER group. This favors the use of nifedipine ER in patients with preE with SF.

Stewart and colleagues examined the more common morbidities associated with MTOP after 20 weeks estimated gestational age using a 10-year retrospective cohort study involving 407 patients. They found that 99% of the women had a successful vaginal delivery; however, 25% had some morbidity. Additionally, 16% of the women needed manual removal of placental tissue, 11% had postpartum hemorrhage, and 1.3% experienced severe maternal morbidity (including amniotic fluid embolism), but no maternal deaths occurred. Increased surveillance for postpartum hemorrhage in this patient population should be considered.

Righini and colleagues provide reassurance regarding a commonly used test to rule out pulmonary embolism in pregnant women. They present ancillary data from a prospective management outcome study of 149 women who underwent CT pulmonary angiography testing in pregnancy. There have been concerns raised regarding potential harmful effects related to intravenous iodinated contrast agents on thyroid function. None of the infants born to these patients had evidence of neonatal hypothyroidism (assessed via thyroid-stimulating hormone measurements). This gives reassurance that the use of CT pulmonary angiography testing for pulmonary embolism in pregnancy is safe.

Although the nausea and vomiting associated with pregnancy are usually mild, they are more severe (hyperemesis gravidarum) in around one-third of women and require hospitalization in the first trimester for 0.3%-3.6% of these women in France. Given the diversity of practical care, a working group from the National College of French Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF) has established a consensus on the definition and management of these symptoms.

Definition and severity

Nausea and vomiting during pregnancy are defined as those emerging in the first trimester of pregnancy and for which there is no other etiology.

The severity of these symptoms should be assessed through weight loss from the beginning of the pregnancy, clinical signs of dehydration (thirst, skin turgor, hypotension, oliguria, etc.), and modified PUQE (Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea) score. This is a three-question score rated from 0 to 15, available in the full text of the expert consensus.

Severe nausea and vomiting are not considered complicated when weight loss is < 5%, with no clinical signs of dehydration, and combined with a PUQE score of ≤ 6. In contrast, hyperemesis gravidarum is distinguished from nausea and vomiting during pregnancy by weight loss of ≥ 5 % or signs of dehydration or a PUQE score of ≥ 7.
 

Treating hyperemesis gravidarum

A laboratory workup should be ordered, along with an assay of blood potassium, blood sodium ions, and creatinine levels, as well as a complete dipstick urinalysis.

If symptoms persist or worsen despite well-managed treatment, an additional assessment is recommended, including an abdominal ultrasound and laboratory workup (white blood cell count, transaminases, lipase, CRP, TSH, T4).

Hospitalization is proposed when at least one of the following criteria is met: weight loss ≥ 10%, one or more clinical signs of dehydration, PUQE score of ≥ 13, hypokalemia < 3.0 mmol/L, hyponatremia < 120 mmol/L, elevated serum creatinine > 100 micromol/L, or resistance to treatment.
 

Which treatment?

Prenatal vitamins and iron supplementation should be stopped, as the latter seems to make symptoms worse. This step should be taken without stopping folic acid supplementation.

Women are free to adapt their diets and lifestyles according to their symptoms, since no such changes have been reported to improve symptoms.

If the PUQE score is < 6, even in the absence of proof of their benefit, ginger or B6 vitamin can be used. The same applies to acupressure, acupuncture, and electrical stimulation, which should only be considered in women without complications. Aromatherapy is not to be used, because of the potential risks associated with essential oils, and as no efficacy has been demonstrated.

It is proposed that drugs or combinations of drugs associated with the least severe and least frequent side effects should always be chosen in the absence of superiority of one class over another.

To prevent Gayet Wernicke encephalopathy, vitamin B1 must be administered systematically for hyperemesis gravidarum needing parenteral rehydration. Psychological support should be offered to all patients with hyperemesis gravidarum because of the negative impact of this pathology on mental well-being. Patients should be informed that there are patient associations involved in supporting these women and their families.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com and was translated from Univadis France.

Although the nausea and vomiting associated with pregnancy are usually mild, they are more severe (hyperemesis gravidarum) in around one-third of women and require hospitalization in the first trimester for 0.3%-3.6% of these women in France. Given the diversity of practical care, a working group from the National College of French Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF) has established a consensus on the definition and management of these symptoms.

Definition and severity

Nausea and vomiting during pregnancy are defined as those emerging in the first trimester of pregnancy and for which there is no other etiology.

The severity of these symptoms should be assessed through weight loss from the beginning of the pregnancy, clinical signs of dehydration (thirst, skin turgor, hypotension, oliguria, etc.), and modified PUQE (Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea) score. This is a three-question score rated from 0 to 15, available in the full text of the expert consensus.

Severe nausea and vomiting are not considered complicated when weight loss is < 5%, with no clinical signs of dehydration, and combined with a PUQE score of ≤ 6. In contrast, hyperemesis gravidarum is distinguished from nausea and vomiting during pregnancy by weight loss of ≥ 5 % or signs of dehydration or a PUQE score of ≥ 7.
 

Treating hyperemesis gravidarum

A laboratory workup should be ordered, along with an assay of blood potassium, blood sodium ions, and creatinine levels, as well as a complete dipstick urinalysis.

If symptoms persist or worsen despite well-managed treatment, an additional assessment is recommended, including an abdominal ultrasound and laboratory workup (white blood cell count, transaminases, lipase, CRP, TSH, T4).

Hospitalization is proposed when at least one of the following criteria is met: weight loss ≥ 10%, one or more clinical signs of dehydration, PUQE score of ≥ 13, hypokalemia < 3.0 mmol/L, hyponatremia < 120 mmol/L, elevated serum creatinine > 100 micromol/L, or resistance to treatment.
 

Which treatment?

Prenatal vitamins and iron supplementation should be stopped, as the latter seems to make symptoms worse. This step should be taken without stopping folic acid supplementation.

Women are free to adapt their diets and lifestyles according to their symptoms, since no such changes have been reported to improve symptoms.

If the PUQE score is < 6, even in the absence of proof of their benefit, ginger or B6 vitamin can be used. The same applies to acupressure, acupuncture, and electrical stimulation, which should only be considered in women without complications. Aromatherapy is not to be used, because of the potential risks associated with essential oils, and as no efficacy has been demonstrated.

It is proposed that drugs or combinations of drugs associated with the least severe and least frequent side effects should always be chosen in the absence of superiority of one class over another.

To prevent Gayet Wernicke encephalopathy, vitamin B1 must be administered systematically for hyperemesis gravidarum needing parenteral rehydration. Psychological support should be offered to all patients with hyperemesis gravidarum because of the negative impact of this pathology on mental well-being. Patients should be informed that there are patient associations involved in supporting these women and their families.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com and was translated from Univadis France.

Although the nausea and vomiting associated with pregnancy are usually mild, they are more severe (hyperemesis gravidarum) in around one-third of women and require hospitalization in the first trimester for 0.3%-3.6% of these women in France. Given the diversity of practical care, a working group from the National College of French Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF) has established a consensus on the definition and management of these symptoms.

Definition and severity

Nausea and vomiting during pregnancy are defined as those emerging in the first trimester of pregnancy and for which there is no other etiology.

The severity of these symptoms should be assessed through weight loss from the beginning of the pregnancy, clinical signs of dehydration (thirst, skin turgor, hypotension, oliguria, etc.), and modified PUQE (Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea) score. This is a three-question score rated from 0 to 15, available in the full text of the expert consensus.

Severe nausea and vomiting are not considered complicated when weight loss is < 5%, with no clinical signs of dehydration, and combined with a PUQE score of ≤ 6. In contrast, hyperemesis gravidarum is distinguished from nausea and vomiting during pregnancy by weight loss of ≥ 5 % or signs of dehydration or a PUQE score of ≥ 7.
 

Treating hyperemesis gravidarum

A laboratory workup should be ordered, along with an assay of blood potassium, blood sodium ions, and creatinine levels, as well as a complete dipstick urinalysis.

If symptoms persist or worsen despite well-managed treatment, an additional assessment is recommended, including an abdominal ultrasound and laboratory workup (white blood cell count, transaminases, lipase, CRP, TSH, T4).

Hospitalization is proposed when at least one of the following criteria is met: weight loss ≥ 10%, one or more clinical signs of dehydration, PUQE score of ≥ 13, hypokalemia < 3.0 mmol/L, hyponatremia < 120 mmol/L, elevated serum creatinine > 100 micromol/L, or resistance to treatment.
 

Which treatment?

Prenatal vitamins and iron supplementation should be stopped, as the latter seems to make symptoms worse. This step should be taken without stopping folic acid supplementation.

Women are free to adapt their diets and lifestyles according to their symptoms, since no such changes have been reported to improve symptoms.

If the PUQE score is < 6, even in the absence of proof of their benefit, ginger or B6 vitamin can be used. The same applies to acupressure, acupuncture, and electrical stimulation, which should only be considered in women without complications. Aromatherapy is not to be used, because of the potential risks associated with essential oils, and as no efficacy has been demonstrated.

It is proposed that drugs or combinations of drugs associated with the least severe and least frequent side effects should always be chosen in the absence of superiority of one class over another.

To prevent Gayet Wernicke encephalopathy, vitamin B1 must be administered systematically for hyperemesis gravidarum needing parenteral rehydration. Psychological support should be offered to all patients with hyperemesis gravidarum because of the negative impact of this pathology on mental well-being. Patients should be informed that there are patient associations involved in supporting these women and their families.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com and was translated from Univadis France.

Arguably, no topic during an infertility consultation generates more of an emotional reaction than discussing body mass index (BMI), particularly when it is high. Patients have become increasingly sensitive to weight discussions with their physicians because of concerns about body shaming. Among patients with an elevated BMI, criticism on social media of health care professionals’ counseling and a preemptive presentation of “Don’t Weigh Me” cards have become popular responses. Despite the medical evidence on impaired reproduction with an abnormal BMI, patients are choosing to forgo the topic. Research has demonstrated “extensive evidence [of] strong weight bias” in a wide range of health staff.¹ A “viral” TikTok study revealed that medical “gaslighting” founded in weight stigma and bias is harmful, as reported on KevinMD.com.² This month, we review the effect of abnormal BMI, both high and low, on reproduction and pregnancy.

A method to assess relative weight was first described in 1832 as its ratio in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters, or the Quetelet Index. The search for a functional assessment of relative body weight began after World War II when reports by actuaries noted the increased mortality of overweight policyholders. The relationship between weight and cardiovascular disease was further revealed in epidemiologic studies. The Quetelet Index became the BMI in 1972.³

Weight measurement is a mainstay in the assessment of a patient’s vital signs along with blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration rate, and temperature. Weight is vital to the calculation of medication dosage – for instance, administration of conscious sedative drugs, methotrexate, and gonadotropins. Some state boards of medicine, such as Florida, have a limitation on patient BMI at office-based surgery centers (40 kg/m²).
 

Obesity is a disease

As reported by the World Health Organization in 2022, the disease of obesity is an epidemic afflicting more than 1 billion people worldwide, or 1 in 8 individuals globally.⁴ The health implications of an elevated BMI include increased mortality, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke, physical limitations to activities of daily living, and complications affecting reproduction.

Female obesity is related to poorer outcomes in natural and assisted conception, including an increased risk of miscarriage. Compared with normal-weight women, those with obesity are three times more likely to have ovulatory dysfunction,⁵ infertility,⁶ a lower chance for conception,⁷ higher rate of miscarriage, and low birth weight.^8,9During pregnancy, women with obesity have three to four times higher rates of gestational diabetes and preeclampsia,¹⁰ as well as likelihood of delivering preterm,¹¹ having a fetus with macrosomia and birth defects, and a 1.3- to 2.1-times higher risk of stillbirth.¹²

Obesity is present in 40%-80% of women with polycystic ovary syndrome,¹³ the most common cause of ovulatory dysfunction from dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis. While PCOS is associated with reproductive and metabolic consequences, even in regularly ovulating women, increasing obesity appears to be associated with decreasing spontaneous pregnancy rates and increased time to pregnancy.¹⁴

Obesity and IVF

Women with obesity have reduced success with assisted reproductive technology, an increased number of canceled cycles, and poorer quality oocytes retrieved. A prospective cohort study of nearly 2,000 women reported that every 5 kg of body weight increase (from the patient’s baseline weight at age 18) was associated with a 5% increase in the mean duration of time required for conception (95% confidence interval, 3%-7%).¹⁵ Given that approximately 90% of these women had regular menstrual cycles, ovulatory dysfunction was not the suspected pathophysiology.

A meta-analysis of 21 cohort studies reported a lower likelihood of live birth following in vitro fertilization for women with obesity, compared with normal-weight women (risk ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.82-0.87).¹⁶ A further subgroup analysis that evaluated only women with PCOS showed a reduction in the live birth rate following IVF for individuals with obesity, compared with normal-weight individuals (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.82).

In a retrospective study of almost 500,000 fresh autologous IVF cycles, women with obesity had a 6% reduction in pregnancy rates and a 13% reduction in live birth rates, compared with normal-weight women. Both high and low BMI were associated with an increased risk of low birth weight and preterm delivery.¹⁷ The live birth rates per transfer for normal-weight and higher-weight women were 38% and 33%, respectively.

Contrarily, a randomized controlled trial showed that an intensive weight-reduction program resulted in a large weight loss but did not substantially affect live birth rates in women with obesity scheduled for IVF.¹⁸

Low BMI

A noteworthy cause of low BMI is functional hypothalamic amenorrhea (FHA), a disorder with low energy availability either from decreased caloric intake and/or excessive energy expenditure associated with eating disorders, excessive exercise, and stress. Consequently, a reduced GnRH drive results in a decreased pulse frequency and amplitude leading to low levels of follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone, resulting in anovulation. Correction of lifestyle behaviors related to FHA can restore menstrual cycles. After normal weight is achieved, it appears unlikely that fertility is affected.¹⁹ In 47% of adolescent patients with anorexia, menses spontaneously returned within the first 12 months after admission, with an improved prognosis in secondary over primary amenorrhea.^20,21 Interestingly, mildly and significantly underweight infertile women have pregnancy and live birth rates similar to normal-weight patients after IVF treatment.²²

Pregnancy is complicated in underweight women, resulting in an increased risk of anemia, fetal growth retardation, and low birth weight, as well as preterm birth.²¹

Take-home message

The extremes of BMI both impair natural reproduction. Elevated BMI reduces success with IVF but rapid weight loss prior to IVF does not improve outcomes. A normal BMI is the goal for optimal reproductive and pregnancy health.

Dr. Trolice is director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
 

References

1. Talumaa B et al. Obesity Rev. 2022;23:e13494.

2. https://bit.ly/3rHCivE.

3. Eknoyan G. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23:47-51.

4. Wells JCK. Dis Models Mech. 2012;5:595-607.

5. Brewer CJ and Balen AH. Reproduction. 2010;140:347-64.

6. Silvestris E et al. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018;16:22.

7. Wise LA et al. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:253-64.

8. Bellver J. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2022;34:114-21.

9. Dickey RP et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209:349.e1.

10. Alwash SM et al. Obes Res Clin Pract. 2021;15:425-30.

11. Cnattingius S et al. JAMA. 2013;309:2362-70.

12. Aune D et al. JAMA. 2014;311:1536-46.

13. Sam S. Obes Manag. 2007;3:69-73.

14. van der Steeg JW et al. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:324-8.

15. Gaskins AJ et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:850-8.

16. Sermondade N et al. Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25:439-519.

17. Kawwass JF et al. Fertil Steril. 2016;106[7]:1742-50.

18. Einarsson S et al. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:1621-30.

19. Chaer R et al. Diseases. 2020;8:46.

20. Dempfle A et al. Psychiatry. 2013;13:308.

21. Verma A and Shrimali L. J Clin Diagn Res. 2012;6:1531-3.

22. Romanski PA et al. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;42:366-74.

Arguably, no topic during an infertility consultation generates more of an emotional reaction than discussing body mass index (BMI), particularly when it is high. Patients have become increasingly sensitive to weight discussions with their physicians because of concerns about body shaming. Among patients with an elevated BMI, criticism on social media of health care professionals’ counseling and a preemptive presentation of “Don’t Weigh Me” cards have become popular responses. Despite the medical evidence on impaired reproduction with an abnormal BMI, patients are choosing to forgo the topic. Research has demonstrated “extensive evidence [of] strong weight bias” in a wide range of health staff.¹ A “viral” TikTok study revealed that medical “gaslighting” founded in weight stigma and bias is harmful, as reported on KevinMD.com.² This month, we review the effect of abnormal BMI, both high and low, on reproduction and pregnancy.

A method to assess relative weight was first described in 1832 as its ratio in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters, or the Quetelet Index. The search for a functional assessment of relative body weight began after World War II when reports by actuaries noted the increased mortality of overweight policyholders. The relationship between weight and cardiovascular disease was further revealed in epidemiologic studies. The Quetelet Index became the BMI in 1972.³

Weight measurement is a mainstay in the assessment of a patient’s vital signs along with blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration rate, and temperature. Weight is vital to the calculation of medication dosage – for instance, administration of conscious sedative drugs, methotrexate, and gonadotropins. Some state boards of medicine, such as Florida, have a limitation on patient BMI at office-based surgery centers (40 kg/m²).
 

Obesity is a disease

As reported by the World Health Organization in 2022, the disease of obesity is an epidemic afflicting more than 1 billion people worldwide, or 1 in 8 individuals globally.⁴ The health implications of an elevated BMI include increased mortality, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke, physical limitations to activities of daily living, and complications affecting reproduction.

Female obesity is related to poorer outcomes in natural and assisted conception, including an increased risk of miscarriage. Compared with normal-weight women, those with obesity are three times more likely to have ovulatory dysfunction,⁵ infertility,⁶ a lower chance for conception,⁷ higher rate of miscarriage, and low birth weight.^8,9During pregnancy, women with obesity have three to four times higher rates of gestational diabetes and preeclampsia,¹⁰ as well as likelihood of delivering preterm,¹¹ having a fetus with macrosomia and birth defects, and a 1.3- to 2.1-times higher risk of stillbirth.¹²

Obesity is present in 40%-80% of women with polycystic ovary syndrome,¹³ the most common cause of ovulatory dysfunction from dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis. While PCOS is associated with reproductive and metabolic consequences, even in regularly ovulating women, increasing obesity appears to be associated with decreasing spontaneous pregnancy rates and increased time to pregnancy.¹⁴

Obesity and IVF

Women with obesity have reduced success with assisted reproductive technology, an increased number of canceled cycles, and poorer quality oocytes retrieved. A prospective cohort study of nearly 2,000 women reported that every 5 kg of body weight increase (from the patient’s baseline weight at age 18) was associated with a 5% increase in the mean duration of time required for conception (95% confidence interval, 3%-7%).¹⁵ Given that approximately 90% of these women had regular menstrual cycles, ovulatory dysfunction was not the suspected pathophysiology.

A meta-analysis of 21 cohort studies reported a lower likelihood of live birth following in vitro fertilization for women with obesity, compared with normal-weight women (risk ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.82-0.87).¹⁶ A further subgroup analysis that evaluated only women with PCOS showed a reduction in the live birth rate following IVF for individuals with obesity, compared with normal-weight individuals (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.82).

In a retrospective study of almost 500,000 fresh autologous IVF cycles, women with obesity had a 6% reduction in pregnancy rates and a 13% reduction in live birth rates, compared with normal-weight women. Both high and low BMI were associated with an increased risk of low birth weight and preterm delivery.¹⁷ The live birth rates per transfer for normal-weight and higher-weight women were 38% and 33%, respectively.

Contrarily, a randomized controlled trial showed that an intensive weight-reduction program resulted in a large weight loss but did not substantially affect live birth rates in women with obesity scheduled for IVF.¹⁸

Low BMI

A noteworthy cause of low BMI is functional hypothalamic amenorrhea (FHA), a disorder with low energy availability either from decreased caloric intake and/or excessive energy expenditure associated with eating disorders, excessive exercise, and stress. Consequently, a reduced GnRH drive results in a decreased pulse frequency and amplitude leading to low levels of follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone, resulting in anovulation. Correction of lifestyle behaviors related to FHA can restore menstrual cycles. After normal weight is achieved, it appears unlikely that fertility is affected.¹⁹ In 47% of adolescent patients with anorexia, menses spontaneously returned within the first 12 months after admission, with an improved prognosis in secondary over primary amenorrhea.^20,21 Interestingly, mildly and significantly underweight infertile women have pregnancy and live birth rates similar to normal-weight patients after IVF treatment.²²

Pregnancy is complicated in underweight women, resulting in an increased risk of anemia, fetal growth retardation, and low birth weight, as well as preterm birth.²¹

Take-home message

The extremes of BMI both impair natural reproduction. Elevated BMI reduces success with IVF but rapid weight loss prior to IVF does not improve outcomes. A normal BMI is the goal for optimal reproductive and pregnancy health.

Dr. Trolice is director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
 

References

1. Talumaa B et al. Obesity Rev. 2022;23:e13494.

2. https://bit.ly/3rHCivE.

3. Eknoyan G. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23:47-51.

4. Wells JCK. Dis Models Mech. 2012;5:595-607.

5. Brewer CJ and Balen AH. Reproduction. 2010;140:347-64.

6. Silvestris E et al. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018;16:22.

7. Wise LA et al. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:253-64.

8. Bellver J. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2022;34:114-21.

9. Dickey RP et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209:349.e1.

10. Alwash SM et al. Obes Res Clin Pract. 2021;15:425-30.

11. Cnattingius S et al. JAMA. 2013;309:2362-70.

12. Aune D et al. JAMA. 2014;311:1536-46.

13. Sam S. Obes Manag. 2007;3:69-73.

14. van der Steeg JW et al. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:324-8.

15. Gaskins AJ et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:850-8.

16. Sermondade N et al. Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25:439-519.

17. Kawwass JF et al. Fertil Steril. 2016;106[7]:1742-50.

18. Einarsson S et al. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:1621-30.

19. Chaer R et al. Diseases. 2020;8:46.

20. Dempfle A et al. Psychiatry. 2013;13:308.

21. Verma A and Shrimali L. J Clin Diagn Res. 2012;6:1531-3.

22. Romanski PA et al. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;42:366-74.

Arguably, no topic during an infertility consultation generates more of an emotional reaction than discussing body mass index (BMI), particularly when it is high. Patients have become increasingly sensitive to weight discussions with their physicians because of concerns about body shaming. Among patients with an elevated BMI, criticism on social media of health care professionals’ counseling and a preemptive presentation of “Don’t Weigh Me” cards have become popular responses. Despite the medical evidence on impaired reproduction with an abnormal BMI, patients are choosing to forgo the topic. Research has demonstrated “extensive evidence [of] strong weight bias” in a wide range of health staff.¹ A “viral” TikTok study revealed that medical “gaslighting” founded in weight stigma and bias is harmful, as reported on KevinMD.com.² This month, we review the effect of abnormal BMI, both high and low, on reproduction and pregnancy.

A method to assess relative weight was first described in 1832 as its ratio in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters, or the Quetelet Index. The search for a functional assessment of relative body weight began after World War II when reports by actuaries noted the increased mortality of overweight policyholders. The relationship between weight and cardiovascular disease was further revealed in epidemiologic studies. The Quetelet Index became the BMI in 1972.³

Weight measurement is a mainstay in the assessment of a patient’s vital signs along with blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration rate, and temperature. Weight is vital to the calculation of medication dosage – for instance, administration of conscious sedative drugs, methotrexate, and gonadotropins. Some state boards of medicine, such as Florida, have a limitation on patient BMI at office-based surgery centers (40 kg/m²).
 

Obesity is a disease

As reported by the World Health Organization in 2022, the disease of obesity is an epidemic afflicting more than 1 billion people worldwide, or 1 in 8 individuals globally.⁴ The health implications of an elevated BMI include increased mortality, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke, physical limitations to activities of daily living, and complications affecting reproduction.

Female obesity is related to poorer outcomes in natural and assisted conception, including an increased risk of miscarriage. Compared with normal-weight women, those with obesity are three times more likely to have ovulatory dysfunction,⁵ infertility,⁶ a lower chance for conception,⁷ higher rate of miscarriage, and low birth weight.^8,9During pregnancy, women with obesity have three to four times higher rates of gestational diabetes and preeclampsia,¹⁰ as well as likelihood of delivering preterm,¹¹ having a fetus with macrosomia and birth defects, and a 1.3- to 2.1-times higher risk of stillbirth.¹²

Obesity is present in 40%-80% of women with polycystic ovary syndrome,¹³ the most common cause of ovulatory dysfunction from dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis. While PCOS is associated with reproductive and metabolic consequences, even in regularly ovulating women, increasing obesity appears to be associated with decreasing spontaneous pregnancy rates and increased time to pregnancy.¹⁴

Obesity and IVF

Women with obesity have reduced success with assisted reproductive technology, an increased number of canceled cycles, and poorer quality oocytes retrieved. A prospective cohort study of nearly 2,000 women reported that every 5 kg of body weight increase (from the patient’s baseline weight at age 18) was associated with a 5% increase in the mean duration of time required for conception (95% confidence interval, 3%-7%).¹⁵ Given that approximately 90% of these women had regular menstrual cycles, ovulatory dysfunction was not the suspected pathophysiology.

A meta-analysis of 21 cohort studies reported a lower likelihood of live birth following in vitro fertilization for women with obesity, compared with normal-weight women (risk ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.82-0.87).¹⁶ A further subgroup analysis that evaluated only women with PCOS showed a reduction in the live birth rate following IVF for individuals with obesity, compared with normal-weight individuals (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.82).

In a retrospective study of almost 500,000 fresh autologous IVF cycles, women with obesity had a 6% reduction in pregnancy rates and a 13% reduction in live birth rates, compared with normal-weight women. Both high and low BMI were associated with an increased risk of low birth weight and preterm delivery.¹⁷ The live birth rates per transfer for normal-weight and higher-weight women were 38% and 33%, respectively.

Contrarily, a randomized controlled trial showed that an intensive weight-reduction program resulted in a large weight loss but did not substantially affect live birth rates in women with obesity scheduled for IVF.¹⁸

Low BMI

A noteworthy cause of low BMI is functional hypothalamic amenorrhea (FHA), a disorder with low energy availability either from decreased caloric intake and/or excessive energy expenditure associated with eating disorders, excessive exercise, and stress. Consequently, a reduced GnRH drive results in a decreased pulse frequency and amplitude leading to low levels of follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone, resulting in anovulation. Correction of lifestyle behaviors related to FHA can restore menstrual cycles. After normal weight is achieved, it appears unlikely that fertility is affected.¹⁹ In 47% of adolescent patients with anorexia, menses spontaneously returned within the first 12 months after admission, with an improved prognosis in secondary over primary amenorrhea.^20,21 Interestingly, mildly and significantly underweight infertile women have pregnancy and live birth rates similar to normal-weight patients after IVF treatment.²²

Pregnancy is complicated in underweight women, resulting in an increased risk of anemia, fetal growth retardation, and low birth weight, as well as preterm birth.²¹

Take-home message

The extremes of BMI both impair natural reproduction. Elevated BMI reduces success with IVF but rapid weight loss prior to IVF does not improve outcomes. A normal BMI is the goal for optimal reproductive and pregnancy health.

Dr. Trolice is director of the IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
 

References

1. Talumaa B et al. Obesity Rev. 2022;23:e13494.

2. https://bit.ly/3rHCivE.

3. Eknoyan G. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23:47-51.

4. Wells JCK. Dis Models Mech. 2012;5:595-607.

5. Brewer CJ and Balen AH. Reproduction. 2010;140:347-64.

6. Silvestris E et al. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018;16:22.

7. Wise LA et al. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:253-64.

8. Bellver J. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2022;34:114-21.

9. Dickey RP et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209:349.e1.

10. Alwash SM et al. Obes Res Clin Pract. 2021;15:425-30.

11. Cnattingius S et al. JAMA. 2013;309:2362-70.

12. Aune D et al. JAMA. 2014;311:1536-46.

13. Sam S. Obes Manag. 2007;3:69-73.

14. van der Steeg JW et al. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:324-8.

15. Gaskins AJ et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:850-8.

16. Sermondade N et al. Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25:439-519.

17. Kawwass JF et al. Fertil Steril. 2016;106[7]:1742-50.

18. Einarsson S et al. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:1621-30.

19. Chaer R et al. Diseases. 2020;8:46.

20. Dempfle A et al. Psychiatry. 2013;13:308.

21. Verma A and Shrimali L. J Clin Diagn Res. 2012;6:1531-3.

22. Romanski PA et al. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;42:366-74.

In a survey taken before the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling regarding abortion rights, two-thirds of assisted reproduction technology (ART) physicians who don’t offer mifepristone/misoprostol to patients with early pregnancy loss (EPL) reported that they lack access to the drugs.

The numbers are likely higher now. In the wake of the court ruling, some physicians in states with new abortion restrictions fear they won’t be able to properly treat women with miscarriages. Access to mifepristone, a component of medication abortions along with misoprostol, is at the center of their concerns.

“These restrictions that were put in place to restrict abortion care have far-reaching implications regarding miscarriages and early pregnancy loss and the assisted reproduction community is not immune,” obstetrics and gynecology specialist Zachary Anderson, MD, a resident physician at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. He presented the findings at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting.

Early pregnancy loss – defined as a miscarriage within 12 weeks and 6 days of conception – is common in all pregnancies and affects an estimated 15% of those who rely on in vitro fertilization (IVF). In women who conceive through intrauterine insemination or IVF, “an abnormal karyotype embryo/fetus is the cause of miscarriage in more than two-thirds of cases,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. “The options of management are observation – with no ability to determine when passage of the products of conception will occur – vs. mifepristone/misoprostol or suction D&C.”

Dr. Trolice added that “most woman select the medical treatment protocol, which is 200 mg mifepristone orally followed by 800 mcg misoprostol vaginally 24 hours later. If no signs of heavy bleeding occur after 3 hours following misoprostol, the patient should repeat the dose of 800 micrograms vaginally.”

According to the Reuters news service, some abortion bans target mifepristone. In October 2022, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asked the Food and Drug Administration to approve mifepristone for use in miscarriage management; such use is now off label, although it is approved to end early pregnancies in conjunction with misoprostol.

For the new study, researchers sent anonymous surveys to 826 members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and received 101 responses (12% response rate, 51% women, 86% non-Hispanic White, average age 52, 52% urban, and 51% in private practice).

More than two-thirds (70%) said they diagnosed early pregnancy loss at least once a week; 47% prefer treatment with misoprostol alone, 18% surgery in an operating room, 15% expectant management (monitoring a miscarriage as it occurs without medical intervention), 10% surgery in the office, and 3% mifepristone-misoprostol.

Of those who don’t offer mifepristone-misoprostol, 68% said they lack access, and 26% said they lack familiarity with the treatment.

Study coauthor Brian T. Nguyen, MD, MSc, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at USC, said in an interview that mifepristone, a highly effective drug, is treated differently from other medications “for no good reason.”

Dr. Anderson, who led the study, urged colleagues to get the appropriate certification to prescribe mifepristone. “Providers overestimate how difficult it is to become certified to prescribe it,” he said.

Dr. Trolice, who is familiar with the study findings, said the response rate is low, and the results might be biased because those with preconceived opinions may be more likely to respond.

However, he said, “The results are not surprising in that medication is more commonly preferred (nearly 50%) given the devastation of a miscarriage and the desire to expedite resolution. Approximately one-third prefer surgical management, which would allow for genetic testing of the embryo/fetus to potentially determine a cause of the pregnancy loss.”

As for the medications used to treat early pregnancy loss, many ART physicians “treat pregnancy loss with misoprostol both pre- and post Dobbs,” he said. “The difficulty in obtaining mifepristone remains.”

The study authors and Dr. Trolice report no disclosures.

In a survey taken before the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling regarding abortion rights, two-thirds of assisted reproduction technology (ART) physicians who don’t offer mifepristone/misoprostol to patients with early pregnancy loss (EPL) reported that they lack access to the drugs.

The numbers are likely higher now. In the wake of the court ruling, some physicians in states with new abortion restrictions fear they won’t be able to properly treat women with miscarriages. Access to mifepristone, a component of medication abortions along with misoprostol, is at the center of their concerns.

“These restrictions that were put in place to restrict abortion care have far-reaching implications regarding miscarriages and early pregnancy loss and the assisted reproduction community is not immune,” obstetrics and gynecology specialist Zachary Anderson, MD, a resident physician at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. He presented the findings at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting.

Early pregnancy loss – defined as a miscarriage within 12 weeks and 6 days of conception – is common in all pregnancies and affects an estimated 15% of those who rely on in vitro fertilization (IVF). In women who conceive through intrauterine insemination or IVF, “an abnormal karyotype embryo/fetus is the cause of miscarriage in more than two-thirds of cases,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. “The options of management are observation – with no ability to determine when passage of the products of conception will occur – vs. mifepristone/misoprostol or suction D&C.”

Dr. Trolice added that “most woman select the medical treatment protocol, which is 200 mg mifepristone orally followed by 800 mcg misoprostol vaginally 24 hours later. If no signs of heavy bleeding occur after 3 hours following misoprostol, the patient should repeat the dose of 800 micrograms vaginally.”

According to the Reuters news service, some abortion bans target mifepristone. In October 2022, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asked the Food and Drug Administration to approve mifepristone for use in miscarriage management; such use is now off label, although it is approved to end early pregnancies in conjunction with misoprostol.

For the new study, researchers sent anonymous surveys to 826 members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and received 101 responses (12% response rate, 51% women, 86% non-Hispanic White, average age 52, 52% urban, and 51% in private practice).

More than two-thirds (70%) said they diagnosed early pregnancy loss at least once a week; 47% prefer treatment with misoprostol alone, 18% surgery in an operating room, 15% expectant management (monitoring a miscarriage as it occurs without medical intervention), 10% surgery in the office, and 3% mifepristone-misoprostol.

Of those who don’t offer mifepristone-misoprostol, 68% said they lack access, and 26% said they lack familiarity with the treatment.

Study coauthor Brian T. Nguyen, MD, MSc, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at USC, said in an interview that mifepristone, a highly effective drug, is treated differently from other medications “for no good reason.”

Dr. Anderson, who led the study, urged colleagues to get the appropriate certification to prescribe mifepristone. “Providers overestimate how difficult it is to become certified to prescribe it,” he said.

Dr. Trolice, who is familiar with the study findings, said the response rate is low, and the results might be biased because those with preconceived opinions may be more likely to respond.

However, he said, “The results are not surprising in that medication is more commonly preferred (nearly 50%) given the devastation of a miscarriage and the desire to expedite resolution. Approximately one-third prefer surgical management, which would allow for genetic testing of the embryo/fetus to potentially determine a cause of the pregnancy loss.”

As for the medications used to treat early pregnancy loss, many ART physicians “treat pregnancy loss with misoprostol both pre- and post Dobbs,” he said. “The difficulty in obtaining mifepristone remains.”

The study authors and Dr. Trolice report no disclosures.

In a survey taken before the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling regarding abortion rights, two-thirds of assisted reproduction technology (ART) physicians who don’t offer mifepristone/misoprostol to patients with early pregnancy loss (EPL) reported that they lack access to the drugs.

The numbers are likely higher now. In the wake of the court ruling, some physicians in states with new abortion restrictions fear they won’t be able to properly treat women with miscarriages. Access to mifepristone, a component of medication abortions along with misoprostol, is at the center of their concerns.

“These restrictions that were put in place to restrict abortion care have far-reaching implications regarding miscarriages and early pregnancy loss and the assisted reproduction community is not immune,” obstetrics and gynecology specialist Zachary Anderson, MD, a resident physician at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. He presented the findings at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting.

Early pregnancy loss – defined as a miscarriage within 12 weeks and 6 days of conception – is common in all pregnancies and affects an estimated 15% of those who rely on in vitro fertilization (IVF). In women who conceive through intrauterine insemination or IVF, “an abnormal karyotype embryo/fetus is the cause of miscarriage in more than two-thirds of cases,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. “The options of management are observation – with no ability to determine when passage of the products of conception will occur – vs. mifepristone/misoprostol or suction D&C.”

Dr. Trolice added that “most woman select the medical treatment protocol, which is 200 mg mifepristone orally followed by 800 mcg misoprostol vaginally 24 hours later. If no signs of heavy bleeding occur after 3 hours following misoprostol, the patient should repeat the dose of 800 micrograms vaginally.”

According to the Reuters news service, some abortion bans target mifepristone. In October 2022, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asked the Food and Drug Administration to approve mifepristone for use in miscarriage management; such use is now off label, although it is approved to end early pregnancies in conjunction with misoprostol.

For the new study, researchers sent anonymous surveys to 826 members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and received 101 responses (12% response rate, 51% women, 86% non-Hispanic White, average age 52, 52% urban, and 51% in private practice).

More than two-thirds (70%) said they diagnosed early pregnancy loss at least once a week; 47% prefer treatment with misoprostol alone, 18% surgery in an operating room, 15% expectant management (monitoring a miscarriage as it occurs without medical intervention), 10% surgery in the office, and 3% mifepristone-misoprostol.

Of those who don’t offer mifepristone-misoprostol, 68% said they lack access, and 26% said they lack familiarity with the treatment.

Study coauthor Brian T. Nguyen, MD, MSc, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at USC, said in an interview that mifepristone, a highly effective drug, is treated differently from other medications “for no good reason.”

Dr. Anderson, who led the study, urged colleagues to get the appropriate certification to prescribe mifepristone. “Providers overestimate how difficult it is to become certified to prescribe it,” he said.

Dr. Trolice, who is familiar with the study findings, said the response rate is low, and the results might be biased because those with preconceived opinions may be more likely to respond.

However, he said, “The results are not surprising in that medication is more commonly preferred (nearly 50%) given the devastation of a miscarriage and the desire to expedite resolution. Approximately one-third prefer surgical management, which would allow for genetic testing of the embryo/fetus to potentially determine a cause of the pregnancy loss.”

As for the medications used to treat early pregnancy loss, many ART physicians “treat pregnancy loss with misoprostol both pre- and post Dobbs,” he said. “The difficulty in obtaining mifepristone remains.”

The study authors and Dr. Trolice report no disclosures.

A new study provides more evidence that HPV infection doesn’t raise the risk of poor outcomes in women who undergo fertility treatment via in vitro fertilization with fresh embryos. In fact, HPV-positive women were somewhat more likely than HPV-negative women to become pregnant (relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.39) and have live births (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.13-1.70), researchers reported Oct. 24 at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting .

“This evidence should reassure women that being HPV positive will not affect live birth rates after a fresh embryo transfer cycle,” said study coauthor and ob.gyn. Nina Vyas, MD, a clinical fellow at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in an interview.

According to Dr. Vyas, previous studies have offered conflicting results about whether HPV affects pregnancy outcomes. In 2006, for example, her group performed a pilot study (Fertil Steril. Jun 16. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.01.051) that linked lower pregnancy rates to HPV-positive tests on the day of egg retrieval.

“We sought to reevaluate this finding in a retrospective manner,” Dr. Vyas said. “You’re taking eggs out of their home, injecting with sperm, and putting them back. There’s so much that we don’t know, and we want to make sure there’s no extra risk.”

Also, she added, “prior studies had a relatively low sample size. We sought to use our patient volume to address this question on a larger scale. Our current study benefits from a large sample size and using the clinically meaningful endpoint of live birth as our primary outcome.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed 1,333 patients (of 2,209 screened) who received first fresh embryo transfers from 2017 to 2019. All had cytology or HPV status documented per cervical cancer screening guidelines within 6 months before embryos were transferred.

The researchers looked at only fresh embryo transfers “so we could account for pregnancy outcomes closest to the documented HPV status at the time of egg retrieval,” Dr. Vyas said.

Ten percent (133) of patients were HPV positive. Of those, 60.1% became pregnant, and 43.6% of them had live births. Of the HPV-negative women (90% of subjects, n = 1,200), 52.2% became pregnant and 33.5% had live births. The researchers didn’t calculate P values, but Dr. Vyas said an analysis determined that the differences between HPV-positive and HPV-negative women were statistically significant.

The study size doesn’t allow researchers to determine whether HPV actually has a protective effect on pregnancy/live birth rates in IVF, Dr. Vyas said. Even if it did, the virus is dangerous.

What else could explain the discrepancy? “Some elements driving this could the smaller sample size of the HPV-positive group, differences in HPV prevalence between the general population and our population,” she said, “or other confounding factors we were not able to appreciate due to the limitations of the retrospective study.”

Researchers also reported that they found “no significant difference in biochemical or spontaneous abortion rates” between HPV-positive and HPV-negative women.

What is the message of the study? “Women with HPV can rest assured that they won’t have worse outcomes than their non-HPV [infected] counterparts after a fresh embryo transfer cycle,” Dr. Vyas said.

In an interview, McGill University, Montreal, epidemiologist Helen Trottier, PhD, MSc, noted that she recently coauthored a study that linked persistent HPV infection in pregnancy to premature births. The findings appear convincing, she said: “I think we can say that HPV is associated with preterm birth.”

She praised the new study but noted “the relative risks that are reported need to be adjusted for race and possibly other factors.”

Dr. Vyas said that kind of adjustment will occur in a future study that’s in progress. “We are now prospectively enrolling patients and collecting cytology data to understand whether there might be a difference for women with higher malignancy potential/different types of HPV genotypes.”

The study authors have no disclosures. Disclosure information for Dr. Trottier was unavailable.

A new study provides more evidence that HPV infection doesn’t raise the risk of poor outcomes in women who undergo fertility treatment via in vitro fertilization with fresh embryos. In fact, HPV-positive women were somewhat more likely than HPV-negative women to become pregnant (relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.39) and have live births (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.13-1.70), researchers reported Oct. 24 at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting .

“This evidence should reassure women that being HPV positive will not affect live birth rates after a fresh embryo transfer cycle,” said study coauthor and ob.gyn. Nina Vyas, MD, a clinical fellow at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in an interview.

According to Dr. Vyas, previous studies have offered conflicting results about whether HPV affects pregnancy outcomes. In 2006, for example, her group performed a pilot study (Fertil Steril. Jun 16. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.01.051) that linked lower pregnancy rates to HPV-positive tests on the day of egg retrieval.

“We sought to reevaluate this finding in a retrospective manner,” Dr. Vyas said. “You’re taking eggs out of their home, injecting with sperm, and putting them back. There’s so much that we don’t know, and we want to make sure there’s no extra risk.”

Also, she added, “prior studies had a relatively low sample size. We sought to use our patient volume to address this question on a larger scale. Our current study benefits from a large sample size and using the clinically meaningful endpoint of live birth as our primary outcome.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed 1,333 patients (of 2,209 screened) who received first fresh embryo transfers from 2017 to 2019. All had cytology or HPV status documented per cervical cancer screening guidelines within 6 months before embryos were transferred.

The researchers looked at only fresh embryo transfers “so we could account for pregnancy outcomes closest to the documented HPV status at the time of egg retrieval,” Dr. Vyas said.

Ten percent (133) of patients were HPV positive. Of those, 60.1% became pregnant, and 43.6% of them had live births. Of the HPV-negative women (90% of subjects, n = 1,200), 52.2% became pregnant and 33.5% had live births. The researchers didn’t calculate P values, but Dr. Vyas said an analysis determined that the differences between HPV-positive and HPV-negative women were statistically significant.

The study size doesn’t allow researchers to determine whether HPV actually has a protective effect on pregnancy/live birth rates in IVF, Dr. Vyas said. Even if it did, the virus is dangerous.

What else could explain the discrepancy? “Some elements driving this could the smaller sample size of the HPV-positive group, differences in HPV prevalence between the general population and our population,” she said, “or other confounding factors we were not able to appreciate due to the limitations of the retrospective study.”

Researchers also reported that they found “no significant difference in biochemical or spontaneous abortion rates” between HPV-positive and HPV-negative women.

What is the message of the study? “Women with HPV can rest assured that they won’t have worse outcomes than their non-HPV [infected] counterparts after a fresh embryo transfer cycle,” Dr. Vyas said.

In an interview, McGill University, Montreal, epidemiologist Helen Trottier, PhD, MSc, noted that she recently coauthored a study that linked persistent HPV infection in pregnancy to premature births. The findings appear convincing, she said: “I think we can say that HPV is associated with preterm birth.”

She praised the new study but noted “the relative risks that are reported need to be adjusted for race and possibly other factors.”

Dr. Vyas said that kind of adjustment will occur in a future study that’s in progress. “We are now prospectively enrolling patients and collecting cytology data to understand whether there might be a difference for women with higher malignancy potential/different types of HPV genotypes.”

The study authors have no disclosures. Disclosure information for Dr. Trottier was unavailable.

A new study provides more evidence that HPV infection doesn’t raise the risk of poor outcomes in women who undergo fertility treatment via in vitro fertilization with fresh embryos. In fact, HPV-positive women were somewhat more likely than HPV-negative women to become pregnant (relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.39) and have live births (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.13-1.70), researchers reported Oct. 24 at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting .

“This evidence should reassure women that being HPV positive will not affect live birth rates after a fresh embryo transfer cycle,” said study coauthor and ob.gyn. Nina Vyas, MD, a clinical fellow at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in an interview.

According to Dr. Vyas, previous studies have offered conflicting results about whether HPV affects pregnancy outcomes. In 2006, for example, her group performed a pilot study (Fertil Steril. Jun 16. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.01.051) that linked lower pregnancy rates to HPV-positive tests on the day of egg retrieval.

“We sought to reevaluate this finding in a retrospective manner,” Dr. Vyas said. “You’re taking eggs out of their home, injecting with sperm, and putting them back. There’s so much that we don’t know, and we want to make sure there’s no extra risk.”

Also, she added, “prior studies had a relatively low sample size. We sought to use our patient volume to address this question on a larger scale. Our current study benefits from a large sample size and using the clinically meaningful endpoint of live birth as our primary outcome.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed 1,333 patients (of 2,209 screened) who received first fresh embryo transfers from 2017 to 2019. All had cytology or HPV status documented per cervical cancer screening guidelines within 6 months before embryos were transferred.

The researchers looked at only fresh embryo transfers “so we could account for pregnancy outcomes closest to the documented HPV status at the time of egg retrieval,” Dr. Vyas said.

Ten percent (133) of patients were HPV positive. Of those, 60.1% became pregnant, and 43.6% of them had live births. Of the HPV-negative women (90% of subjects, n = 1,200), 52.2% became pregnant and 33.5% had live births. The researchers didn’t calculate P values, but Dr. Vyas said an analysis determined that the differences between HPV-positive and HPV-negative women were statistically significant.

The study size doesn’t allow researchers to determine whether HPV actually has a protective effect on pregnancy/live birth rates in IVF, Dr. Vyas said. Even if it did, the virus is dangerous.

What else could explain the discrepancy? “Some elements driving this could the smaller sample size of the HPV-positive group, differences in HPV prevalence between the general population and our population,” she said, “or other confounding factors we were not able to appreciate due to the limitations of the retrospective study.”

Researchers also reported that they found “no significant difference in biochemical or spontaneous abortion rates” between HPV-positive and HPV-negative women.

What is the message of the study? “Women with HPV can rest assured that they won’t have worse outcomes than their non-HPV [infected] counterparts after a fresh embryo transfer cycle,” Dr. Vyas said.

In an interview, McGill University, Montreal, epidemiologist Helen Trottier, PhD, MSc, noted that she recently coauthored a study that linked persistent HPV infection in pregnancy to premature births. The findings appear convincing, she said: “I think we can say that HPV is associated with preterm birth.”

She praised the new study but noted “the relative risks that are reported need to be adjusted for race and possibly other factors.”

Dr. Vyas said that kind of adjustment will occur in a future study that’s in progress. “We are now prospectively enrolling patients and collecting cytology data to understand whether there might be a difference for women with higher malignancy potential/different types of HPV genotypes.”

The study authors have no disclosures. Disclosure information for Dr. Trottier was unavailable.