Women's Health

Pregnancy increases the risk for first-time symptomatic kidney stone formation which peaks close to the time of delivery but can persist even a year later, a population-based, case-controlled study suggests.

“We suspected the risk of a kidney stone event would be high during pregnancy, but we were surprised that the risk remained high for up to a year after delivery,” senior author Andrew Rule, MD, a nephrologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn, said in a statement from his institution.

“[So] while most kidney stones that form during pregnancy are detected early by painful passage, some may remain stable in the kidney undetected for a longer period before dislodging and [again] resulting in a painful passage,” he added.

The study was published online April 15, 2021, in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases by Charat Thongprayoon, MD, also of the Mayo Clinic, and colleagues.

“The results of this study indicate that prenatal counseling regarding kidney stones may be warranted, especially for women with other risk factors for kidney stones, such as obesity,” he noted.
 

First-time stone formers

The observational study included 945 first-time symptomatic kidney stone formers aged between 15 and 45 years who were compared with 1,890 age-matched female controls from the Rochester Epidemiology Project. The latter is a medical record linkage system for almost all medical care administered in Olmsted County in Minnesota.

Compared with nonpregnant women, the odds of a symptomatic kidney stone forming in a pregnant woman was similar in the first trimester (odds ratio, 0.92; P = .8), began to increase during the second trimester (OR, 2.00; P = .007), further increased during the third trimester (OR, 2.69; P = .001), and peaked at 0-3 months after delivery (OR, 3.53; P < .001). The risk returned to baseline by 1 year after delivery.

These associations persisted after adjustment for age and race or for diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. These results did not significantly differ by age, race, time period, or number of prior pregnancies.

The risk of a pregnant woman developing a symptomatic kidney stone was higher in women with obesity, compared with those of normal weight (P = .01).

And compared with women who had not been pregnant before, one prior pregnancy also increased the risk of having a symptomatic kidney stone by approximately 30% (OR, 1.29; P = .03), although two or more prior pregnancies did not significantly increase symptomatic kidney stone risk.

Thus, “it can be inferred that the odds of a symptomatic kidney stone peak around the time of delivery,” the authors emphasized. “The odds of a first-time symptomatic kidney stone then decreased over time and were fully attenuated and no longer statistically significant by 12 months after delivery.”

Dr. Thongprayoon said there are several physiologic reasons why pregnancy might contribute to kidney stone formation.

During pregnancy, ureteral compression and ureteral relaxation caused by elevated progesterone levels can cause urinary stasis.

Furthermore, increased urinary calcium excretion and elevated urine pH during pregnancy can promote calcium phosphate stone formation. It is noteworthy that almost all pregnant, first-time stone formers had calcium phosphate stones.

“During pregnancy, a kidney stone may contribute to serious complications,” Dr. Thongprayoon explained.

General dietary recommendations for preventing kidney stones include drinking abundant fluids and consuming a low-salt diet.

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic O’Brien Urology Research Center and a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnancy increases the risk for first-time symptomatic kidney stone formation which peaks close to the time of delivery but can persist even a year later, a population-based, case-controlled study suggests.

“We suspected the risk of a kidney stone event would be high during pregnancy, but we were surprised that the risk remained high for up to a year after delivery,” senior author Andrew Rule, MD, a nephrologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn, said in a statement from his institution.

“[So] while most kidney stones that form during pregnancy are detected early by painful passage, some may remain stable in the kidney undetected for a longer period before dislodging and [again] resulting in a painful passage,” he added.

The study was published online April 15, 2021, in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases by Charat Thongprayoon, MD, also of the Mayo Clinic, and colleagues.

“The results of this study indicate that prenatal counseling regarding kidney stones may be warranted, especially for women with other risk factors for kidney stones, such as obesity,” he noted.
 

First-time stone formers

The observational study included 945 first-time symptomatic kidney stone formers aged between 15 and 45 years who were compared with 1,890 age-matched female controls from the Rochester Epidemiology Project. The latter is a medical record linkage system for almost all medical care administered in Olmsted County in Minnesota.

Compared with nonpregnant women, the odds of a symptomatic kidney stone forming in a pregnant woman was similar in the first trimester (odds ratio, 0.92; P = .8), began to increase during the second trimester (OR, 2.00; P = .007), further increased during the third trimester (OR, 2.69; P = .001), and peaked at 0-3 months after delivery (OR, 3.53; P < .001). The risk returned to baseline by 1 year after delivery.

These associations persisted after adjustment for age and race or for diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. These results did not significantly differ by age, race, time period, or number of prior pregnancies.

The risk of a pregnant woman developing a symptomatic kidney stone was higher in women with obesity, compared with those of normal weight (P = .01).

And compared with women who had not been pregnant before, one prior pregnancy also increased the risk of having a symptomatic kidney stone by approximately 30% (OR, 1.29; P = .03), although two or more prior pregnancies did not significantly increase symptomatic kidney stone risk.

Thus, “it can be inferred that the odds of a symptomatic kidney stone peak around the time of delivery,” the authors emphasized. “The odds of a first-time symptomatic kidney stone then decreased over time and were fully attenuated and no longer statistically significant by 12 months after delivery.”

Dr. Thongprayoon said there are several physiologic reasons why pregnancy might contribute to kidney stone formation.

During pregnancy, ureteral compression and ureteral relaxation caused by elevated progesterone levels can cause urinary stasis.

Furthermore, increased urinary calcium excretion and elevated urine pH during pregnancy can promote calcium phosphate stone formation. It is noteworthy that almost all pregnant, first-time stone formers had calcium phosphate stones.

“During pregnancy, a kidney stone may contribute to serious complications,” Dr. Thongprayoon explained.

General dietary recommendations for preventing kidney stones include drinking abundant fluids and consuming a low-salt diet.

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic O’Brien Urology Research Center and a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pregnancy increases the risk for first-time symptomatic kidney stone formation which peaks close to the time of delivery but can persist even a year later, a population-based, case-controlled study suggests.

“We suspected the risk of a kidney stone event would be high during pregnancy, but we were surprised that the risk remained high for up to a year after delivery,” senior author Andrew Rule, MD, a nephrologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn, said in a statement from his institution.

“[So] while most kidney stones that form during pregnancy are detected early by painful passage, some may remain stable in the kidney undetected for a longer period before dislodging and [again] resulting in a painful passage,” he added.

The study was published online April 15, 2021, in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases by Charat Thongprayoon, MD, also of the Mayo Clinic, and colleagues.

“The results of this study indicate that prenatal counseling regarding kidney stones may be warranted, especially for women with other risk factors for kidney stones, such as obesity,” he noted.
 

First-time stone formers

The observational study included 945 first-time symptomatic kidney stone formers aged between 15 and 45 years who were compared with 1,890 age-matched female controls from the Rochester Epidemiology Project. The latter is a medical record linkage system for almost all medical care administered in Olmsted County in Minnesota.

Compared with nonpregnant women, the odds of a symptomatic kidney stone forming in a pregnant woman was similar in the first trimester (odds ratio, 0.92; P = .8), began to increase during the second trimester (OR, 2.00; P = .007), further increased during the third trimester (OR, 2.69; P = .001), and peaked at 0-3 months after delivery (OR, 3.53; P < .001). The risk returned to baseline by 1 year after delivery.

These associations persisted after adjustment for age and race or for diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. These results did not significantly differ by age, race, time period, or number of prior pregnancies.

The risk of a pregnant woman developing a symptomatic kidney stone was higher in women with obesity, compared with those of normal weight (P = .01).

And compared with women who had not been pregnant before, one prior pregnancy also increased the risk of having a symptomatic kidney stone by approximately 30% (OR, 1.29; P = .03), although two or more prior pregnancies did not significantly increase symptomatic kidney stone risk.

Thus, “it can be inferred that the odds of a symptomatic kidney stone peak around the time of delivery,” the authors emphasized. “The odds of a first-time symptomatic kidney stone then decreased over time and were fully attenuated and no longer statistically significant by 12 months after delivery.”

Dr. Thongprayoon said there are several physiologic reasons why pregnancy might contribute to kidney stone formation.

During pregnancy, ureteral compression and ureteral relaxation caused by elevated progesterone levels can cause urinary stasis.

Furthermore, increased urinary calcium excretion and elevated urine pH during pregnancy can promote calcium phosphate stone formation. It is noteworthy that almost all pregnant, first-time stone formers had calcium phosphate stones.

“During pregnancy, a kidney stone may contribute to serious complications,” Dr. Thongprayoon explained.

General dietary recommendations for preventing kidney stones include drinking abundant fluids and consuming a low-salt diet.

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic O’Brien Urology Research Center and a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines appear to be safe in pregnant patients, according to preliminary findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have said pregnant people have an increased risk of being severely ill from COVID-19; however, this group was excluded from major clinical trials that led up to the current vaccine approvals.

But based on the new findings, Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, announced during a White House COVID-19 briefing that the CDC recommends that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

The new study, which analyzed data between Dec. 14, 2020, and Feb. 28, 2021, from three federal databases, adds to a pool of limited data about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in pregnant persons. Researchers did not include people who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine because it received emergency use authorization on Feb. 27, just 1 day before they study’s cutoff.

“Our hope is that these initial data will be reassuring to pregnant people and their health care providers as well as the public, and contribute to increasing vaccination rates,” study author Christine Olson, MD, said in an interview. “While the data are preliminary and will continue to be analyzed as more reports become available, our findings are reassuring.”

For the study, Dr. Olson and colleagues analyzed v-safe survey data, data from those enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, and Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports.

Researchers found that 86% of pregnancies resulted in a live birth, 12.6 % resulted in spontaneous abortions, and 0.1% resulted in stillbirth. They also found that, among the live births, 9.4% were preterm, 3.2% of babies were small for their gestational age, and 2.2% had congenital anomalies.

Researchers also found that injection-site pain, fatigue, and headaches were reported more frequently in pregnant patients than among those who were not pregnant. Among VAERS reports, they found that 70% of adverse events were nonpregnancy specific. Nearly 30% involved pregnancy- or neonatal-specific adverse events. The most frequently reported pregnancy-related events were spontaneous abortions, followed by stillbirths, premature rupture of membranes and vaginal bleeding.

“I think the results are actually quite reassuring as the proportion of the pregnancy outcomes, such as pregnancy loss and health effects to the newborns, are really quite consistent with what we’d expect in the background rate of the population,” Dr. Walensky said in a podcast accompanying the study. “So this study adds to growing evidence confirming that pregnant people develop a robust immune response to COVID-19 vaccination without so far seeing any adverse events to the mom or the fetus.”

Researchers said limitations of the study include the accuracy of self-reported data, and there being limited information on other potential risk factors for adverse pregnancies and neonatal outcomes. They acknowledged that continuous monitoring is needed to look at maternal safety and pregnancy outcomes in earlier stages of pregnancy and during the preconception period.

David Jaspan, DO, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview that, despite the limitations, the study provides much-needed insight on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy in pregnant patients.

“In December we had no data for any pregnant patient,” Dr. Jaspan said. “And now just 4 short months later, this paper [has data from] at least had 35,000 people. We can’t answer every question, but we have more answers today than we had just 4 months ago.”

Dr. Olson hopes the present data is enough to help inform decision-making of pregnant patients and their health care providers when it comes to deciding to get the COVID-19 vaccination.

The study author and experts interviewed disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines appear to be safe in pregnant patients, according to preliminary findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have said pregnant people have an increased risk of being severely ill from COVID-19; however, this group was excluded from major clinical trials that led up to the current vaccine approvals.

But based on the new findings, Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, announced during a White House COVID-19 briefing that the CDC recommends that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

The new study, which analyzed data between Dec. 14, 2020, and Feb. 28, 2021, from three federal databases, adds to a pool of limited data about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in pregnant persons. Researchers did not include people who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine because it received emergency use authorization on Feb. 27, just 1 day before they study’s cutoff.

“Our hope is that these initial data will be reassuring to pregnant people and their health care providers as well as the public, and contribute to increasing vaccination rates,” study author Christine Olson, MD, said in an interview. “While the data are preliminary and will continue to be analyzed as more reports become available, our findings are reassuring.”

For the study, Dr. Olson and colleagues analyzed v-safe survey data, data from those enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, and Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports.

Researchers found that 86% of pregnancies resulted in a live birth, 12.6 % resulted in spontaneous abortions, and 0.1% resulted in stillbirth. They also found that, among the live births, 9.4% were preterm, 3.2% of babies were small for their gestational age, and 2.2% had congenital anomalies.

Researchers also found that injection-site pain, fatigue, and headaches were reported more frequently in pregnant patients than among those who were not pregnant. Among VAERS reports, they found that 70% of adverse events were nonpregnancy specific. Nearly 30% involved pregnancy- or neonatal-specific adverse events. The most frequently reported pregnancy-related events were spontaneous abortions, followed by stillbirths, premature rupture of membranes and vaginal bleeding.

“I think the results are actually quite reassuring as the proportion of the pregnancy outcomes, such as pregnancy loss and health effects to the newborns, are really quite consistent with what we’d expect in the background rate of the population,” Dr. Walensky said in a podcast accompanying the study. “So this study adds to growing evidence confirming that pregnant people develop a robust immune response to COVID-19 vaccination without so far seeing any adverse events to the mom or the fetus.”

Researchers said limitations of the study include the accuracy of self-reported data, and there being limited information on other potential risk factors for adverse pregnancies and neonatal outcomes. They acknowledged that continuous monitoring is needed to look at maternal safety and pregnancy outcomes in earlier stages of pregnancy and during the preconception period.

David Jaspan, DO, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview that, despite the limitations, the study provides much-needed insight on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy in pregnant patients.

“In December we had no data for any pregnant patient,” Dr. Jaspan said. “And now just 4 short months later, this paper [has data from] at least had 35,000 people. We can’t answer every question, but we have more answers today than we had just 4 months ago.”

Dr. Olson hopes the present data is enough to help inform decision-making of pregnant patients and their health care providers when it comes to deciding to get the COVID-19 vaccination.

The study author and experts interviewed disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines appear to be safe in pregnant patients, according to preliminary findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have said pregnant people have an increased risk of being severely ill from COVID-19; however, this group was excluded from major clinical trials that led up to the current vaccine approvals.

But based on the new findings, Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, announced during a White House COVID-19 briefing that the CDC recommends that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

The new study, which analyzed data between Dec. 14, 2020, and Feb. 28, 2021, from three federal databases, adds to a pool of limited data about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine in pregnant persons. Researchers did not include people who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine because it received emergency use authorization on Feb. 27, just 1 day before they study’s cutoff.

“Our hope is that these initial data will be reassuring to pregnant people and their health care providers as well as the public, and contribute to increasing vaccination rates,” study author Christine Olson, MD, said in an interview. “While the data are preliminary and will continue to be analyzed as more reports become available, our findings are reassuring.”

For the study, Dr. Olson and colleagues analyzed v-safe survey data, data from those enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, and Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports.

Researchers found that 86% of pregnancies resulted in a live birth, 12.6 % resulted in spontaneous abortions, and 0.1% resulted in stillbirth. They also found that, among the live births, 9.4% were preterm, 3.2% of babies were small for their gestational age, and 2.2% had congenital anomalies.

Researchers also found that injection-site pain, fatigue, and headaches were reported more frequently in pregnant patients than among those who were not pregnant. Among VAERS reports, they found that 70% of adverse events were nonpregnancy specific. Nearly 30% involved pregnancy- or neonatal-specific adverse events. The most frequently reported pregnancy-related events were spontaneous abortions, followed by stillbirths, premature rupture of membranes and vaginal bleeding.

“I think the results are actually quite reassuring as the proportion of the pregnancy outcomes, such as pregnancy loss and health effects to the newborns, are really quite consistent with what we’d expect in the background rate of the population,” Dr. Walensky said in a podcast accompanying the study. “So this study adds to growing evidence confirming that pregnant people develop a robust immune response to COVID-19 vaccination without so far seeing any adverse events to the mom or the fetus.”

Researchers said limitations of the study include the accuracy of self-reported data, and there being limited information on other potential risk factors for adverse pregnancies and neonatal outcomes. They acknowledged that continuous monitoring is needed to look at maternal safety and pregnancy outcomes in earlier stages of pregnancy and during the preconception period.

David Jaspan, DO, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview that, despite the limitations, the study provides much-needed insight on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy in pregnant patients.

“In December we had no data for any pregnant patient,” Dr. Jaspan said. “And now just 4 short months later, this paper [has data from] at least had 35,000 people. We can’t answer every question, but we have more answers today than we had just 4 months ago.”

Dr. Olson hopes the present data is enough to help inform decision-making of pregnant patients and their health care providers when it comes to deciding to get the COVID-19 vaccination.

The study author and experts interviewed disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

As the U.S. races to vaccinate millions of people against the coronavirus, pregnant women face the extra challenge of not knowing whether the vaccines are safe for them or their unborn babies.

None of the recent COVID-19 vaccine trials, including those for Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson, enrolled pregnant or breastfeeding women because they consider them a high-risk group.

That was despite the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asking that pregnant and breastfeeding women be included in trials. The Food and Drug Administration even included pregnant women in the COVID-19 vaccine emergency use authorization (EUA) because of their higher risk of having a more severe disease.

Despite that lack of clinical trial data, more and more smaller studies are suggesting that the vaccines are safe for both mother and child.

Pfizer is now studying its two-dose vaccine in 4,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women to see how safe, tolerated, and robust their immune response is. Researchers will also look at how safe the vaccine is for infants and whether mothers pass along antibodies to children. But the preliminary results won’t be available until the end of the year, a Pfizer spokesperson says.

Without that information, pregnant women are less likely to get vaccinated, according to a large international survey. Less than 45% of pregnant women in the United States said they intended to get vaccinated even when they were told the vaccine was safe and 90% effective. That figure rises to 52% of pregnant women in 16 countries, including the United States, compared with 74% of nonpregnant women willing to be vaccinated. The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in the European Journal of Epidemiology.

The vaccine-hesitant pregnant women in the international study were most concerned that the COVID-19 vaccine could harm their developing fetuses, a worry related to the lack of clinical evidence in pregnant women, said lead researcher Julia Wu, ScD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health’s Human Immunomics Initiative in Boston.

The information vacuum also increases the chances that “people will fall victim to misinformation campaigns like the one on social media that claims that the COVID-19 vaccine causes infertility,” Dr. Wu said. This unfounded claim has deterred some women of childbearing age from getting the vaccine.
 

Deciding to get vaccinated

Frontline health care professionals were in the first group eligible to receive the vaccine in December 2020. “All of us who were pregnant ... had to decide whether to wait for the data, because we don’t know what the risks are, or go ahead and get it [the vaccine]. We had been dealing with the pandemic for months and were afraid of being exposed to the virus and infecting family members,” said Jacqueline Parchem, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.

Given the lack of safety data, the CDC guidance to pregnant women has been to consult with their doctors and that it’s a personal choice. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest vaccine guidance said that “there is no evidence that antibodies formed from COVID-19 vaccination cause any problem with pregnancy, including the development of the placenta.”

The CDC is monitoring vaccinated people through its v-safe program and reported on April 12 that more than 86,000 v-safe participants said they were pregnant when they were vaccinated.

Health care workers who were nursing their infants when they were eligible for the vaccine faced a similar dilemma as pregnant women – they lacked the data on them to make a truly informed decision.

“I was nervous about the vaccine side effects for myself and whether my son Bennett, who was about a year old, would experience any of these himself,” said Christa Carrig, a labor and delivery nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was breastfeeding at the time.

She and Dr. Parchem know that pregnant women with COVID-19 are more likely to have severe illness and complications such as high blood pressure and preterm delivery. “Pregnancy takes a toll on the body. When a woman gets COVID-19 and that insult is added, women who were otherwise young and healthy get much sicker than you would expect,” said Ms. Carrig.

“As a high-risk pregnancy specialist, I know that, with COVID, that babies don’t do well when moms are sick,” said Dr. Parchem.

Pregnant women accounted for more than 84,629 cases of COVID-19 and 95 deaths in the United States between Jan. 22 last year and April 12 this year, according to the CDC COVID data tracker.

Dr. Parchem and Ms. Carrig decided to get vaccinated because of their high risk of exposure to COVID-19 at work. After the second dose, Ms. Carrig reported chills but Bennett had no side effects from breastfeeding. Dr. Parchem, who delivered a healthy baby boy in February, reported no side effects other than a sore arm.

“There’s also a psychological benefit to returning to some sense of normalcy,” said Dr. Parchem. “My mother was finally able to visit us to see the new baby after we were all vaccinated. This was the first visit in more than a year.”
 

New study results

Ms. Carrig was one of 131 vaccinated hospital workers in the Boston area who took part in the first study to profile the immune response in pregnant and breastfeeding women and compare it with both nonpregnant and pregnant women who had COVID-19.

The study was not designed to evaluate the safety of the vaccines or whether they prevent COVID-19 illness and hospitalizations. That is the role of the large vaccine trials, the authors said.

The participants were aged 18-45 years and received both doses of either Pfizer or Moderna vaccines during one of their trimesters. They provided blood and/or breast milk samples after each vaccine dose, 2-6 weeks after the last dose, and at delivery for the 10 who gave birth during the study.

The vaccines produced a similar strong antibody response among the pregnant/breastfeeding women and nonpregnant women. Their antibody levels were much higher than those found in the pregnant women who had COVID-19, the researchers reported on March 25, 2021, in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

“This is important because a lot of people tend to think once they’ve had COVID-19, they are protected from the virus. This finding suggests that the vaccines produce a stronger antibody response than the infection itself, and this might be important for long-lasting protection against COVID-19,” said Dr. Parchem.

The study also addressed whether newborns benefit from the antibodies produced by their mothers. “In the 10 women who delivered, we detected antibodies in their umbilical cords and breast milk,” says Andrea Edlow, MD, lead researcher and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Newborns are particularly vulnerable to respiratory infections because they have small airways and their immune systems are underdeveloped. These infections can be lethal early in life.

“The public health strategy is to vaccinate mothers against respiratory viruses, bacteria, and parasites that neonates up to 6 months are exposed to. Influenza and pertussis (whooping cough) are two examples of vaccines that we give mothers that we know transfer [antibodies] across the umbilical cord,” said Dr. Edlow.

But this “passive transfer immunity” is different from active immunity, when the body produces its own antibody immune response, she explains.

A different study, also published in March, confirmed that antibodies were transferred from 27 vaccinated pregnant mothers to their infants when they delivered. A new finding was that the women who were vaccinated with both doses and earlier in their third semester passed on more antibodies than the women who were vaccinated later or with only one dose.


 

Impact of the studies

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine updated its guidance on counseling pregnant and lactating patients about the COVID-19 vaccines to include Dr. Edlow’s study.

“We were struck by how much pregnant and breastfeeding women want to participate in research and to help others in the same situation make decisions. I hope this will be an example to drug companies doing research on new vaccines in the future – that they should not be left behind and can make decisions themselves whether to participate after weighing the risks and benefits,” said Dr. Edlow.

She continues to enroll more vaccinated women in her study in the Boston area, including non–health care workers who have asked to take part.

“It was worth getting vaccinated and participating in the study. I know that I have antibodies and it worked and that I passed them on to Bennett. Also, I know that all the information is available for other women who are questioning whether to get vaccinated or not,” said Ms. Carrig.

Dr. Parchem is also taking part in the CDC’s v-safe pregnancy registry, which is collecting health and safety data on vaccinated pregnant women.

Before she was vaccinated, Dr. Parchem said, “my advice was very measured because we lacked data either saying that it definitely works or showing that it was unsafe. Now that we have this data supporting the benefits, I feel more confident in recommending the vaccines.”

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

As the U.S. races to vaccinate millions of people against the coronavirus, pregnant women face the extra challenge of not knowing whether the vaccines are safe for them or their unborn babies.

None of the recent COVID-19 vaccine trials, including those for Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson, enrolled pregnant or breastfeeding women because they consider them a high-risk group.

That was despite the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asking that pregnant and breastfeeding women be included in trials. The Food and Drug Administration even included pregnant women in the COVID-19 vaccine emergency use authorization (EUA) because of their higher risk of having a more severe disease.

Despite that lack of clinical trial data, more and more smaller studies are suggesting that the vaccines are safe for both mother and child.

Pfizer is now studying its two-dose vaccine in 4,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women to see how safe, tolerated, and robust their immune response is. Researchers will also look at how safe the vaccine is for infants and whether mothers pass along antibodies to children. But the preliminary results won’t be available until the end of the year, a Pfizer spokesperson says.

Without that information, pregnant women are less likely to get vaccinated, according to a large international survey. Less than 45% of pregnant women in the United States said they intended to get vaccinated even when they were told the vaccine was safe and 90% effective. That figure rises to 52% of pregnant women in 16 countries, including the United States, compared with 74% of nonpregnant women willing to be vaccinated. The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in the European Journal of Epidemiology.

The vaccine-hesitant pregnant women in the international study were most concerned that the COVID-19 vaccine could harm their developing fetuses, a worry related to the lack of clinical evidence in pregnant women, said lead researcher Julia Wu, ScD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health’s Human Immunomics Initiative in Boston.

The information vacuum also increases the chances that “people will fall victim to misinformation campaigns like the one on social media that claims that the COVID-19 vaccine causes infertility,” Dr. Wu said. This unfounded claim has deterred some women of childbearing age from getting the vaccine.
 

Deciding to get vaccinated

Frontline health care professionals were in the first group eligible to receive the vaccine in December 2020. “All of us who were pregnant ... had to decide whether to wait for the data, because we don’t know what the risks are, or go ahead and get it [the vaccine]. We had been dealing with the pandemic for months and were afraid of being exposed to the virus and infecting family members,” said Jacqueline Parchem, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.

Given the lack of safety data, the CDC guidance to pregnant women has been to consult with their doctors and that it’s a personal choice. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest vaccine guidance said that “there is no evidence that antibodies formed from COVID-19 vaccination cause any problem with pregnancy, including the development of the placenta.”

The CDC is monitoring vaccinated people through its v-safe program and reported on April 12 that more than 86,000 v-safe participants said they were pregnant when they were vaccinated.

Health care workers who were nursing their infants when they were eligible for the vaccine faced a similar dilemma as pregnant women – they lacked the data on them to make a truly informed decision.

“I was nervous about the vaccine side effects for myself and whether my son Bennett, who was about a year old, would experience any of these himself,” said Christa Carrig, a labor and delivery nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was breastfeeding at the time.

She and Dr. Parchem know that pregnant women with COVID-19 are more likely to have severe illness and complications such as high blood pressure and preterm delivery. “Pregnancy takes a toll on the body. When a woman gets COVID-19 and that insult is added, women who were otherwise young and healthy get much sicker than you would expect,” said Ms. Carrig.

“As a high-risk pregnancy specialist, I know that, with COVID, that babies don’t do well when moms are sick,” said Dr. Parchem.

Pregnant women accounted for more than 84,629 cases of COVID-19 and 95 deaths in the United States between Jan. 22 last year and April 12 this year, according to the CDC COVID data tracker.

Dr. Parchem and Ms. Carrig decided to get vaccinated because of their high risk of exposure to COVID-19 at work. After the second dose, Ms. Carrig reported chills but Bennett had no side effects from breastfeeding. Dr. Parchem, who delivered a healthy baby boy in February, reported no side effects other than a sore arm.

“There’s also a psychological benefit to returning to some sense of normalcy,” said Dr. Parchem. “My mother was finally able to visit us to see the new baby after we were all vaccinated. This was the first visit in more than a year.”
 

New study results

Ms. Carrig was one of 131 vaccinated hospital workers in the Boston area who took part in the first study to profile the immune response in pregnant and breastfeeding women and compare it with both nonpregnant and pregnant women who had COVID-19.

The study was not designed to evaluate the safety of the vaccines or whether they prevent COVID-19 illness and hospitalizations. That is the role of the large vaccine trials, the authors said.

The participants were aged 18-45 years and received both doses of either Pfizer or Moderna vaccines during one of their trimesters. They provided blood and/or breast milk samples after each vaccine dose, 2-6 weeks after the last dose, and at delivery for the 10 who gave birth during the study.

The vaccines produced a similar strong antibody response among the pregnant/breastfeeding women and nonpregnant women. Their antibody levels were much higher than those found in the pregnant women who had COVID-19, the researchers reported on March 25, 2021, in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

“This is important because a lot of people tend to think once they’ve had COVID-19, they are protected from the virus. This finding suggests that the vaccines produce a stronger antibody response than the infection itself, and this might be important for long-lasting protection against COVID-19,” said Dr. Parchem.

The study also addressed whether newborns benefit from the antibodies produced by their mothers. “In the 10 women who delivered, we detected antibodies in their umbilical cords and breast milk,” says Andrea Edlow, MD, lead researcher and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Newborns are particularly vulnerable to respiratory infections because they have small airways and their immune systems are underdeveloped. These infections can be lethal early in life.

“The public health strategy is to vaccinate mothers against respiratory viruses, bacteria, and parasites that neonates up to 6 months are exposed to. Influenza and pertussis (whooping cough) are two examples of vaccines that we give mothers that we know transfer [antibodies] across the umbilical cord,” said Dr. Edlow.

But this “passive transfer immunity” is different from active immunity, when the body produces its own antibody immune response, she explains.

A different study, also published in March, confirmed that antibodies were transferred from 27 vaccinated pregnant mothers to their infants when they delivered. A new finding was that the women who were vaccinated with both doses and earlier in their third semester passed on more antibodies than the women who were vaccinated later or with only one dose.


 

Impact of the studies

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine updated its guidance on counseling pregnant and lactating patients about the COVID-19 vaccines to include Dr. Edlow’s study.

“We were struck by how much pregnant and breastfeeding women want to participate in research and to help others in the same situation make decisions. I hope this will be an example to drug companies doing research on new vaccines in the future – that they should not be left behind and can make decisions themselves whether to participate after weighing the risks and benefits,” said Dr. Edlow.

She continues to enroll more vaccinated women in her study in the Boston area, including non–health care workers who have asked to take part.

“It was worth getting vaccinated and participating in the study. I know that I have antibodies and it worked and that I passed them on to Bennett. Also, I know that all the information is available for other women who are questioning whether to get vaccinated or not,” said Ms. Carrig.

Dr. Parchem is also taking part in the CDC’s v-safe pregnancy registry, which is collecting health and safety data on vaccinated pregnant women.

Before she was vaccinated, Dr. Parchem said, “my advice was very measured because we lacked data either saying that it definitely works or showing that it was unsafe. Now that we have this data supporting the benefits, I feel more confident in recommending the vaccines.”

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

As the U.S. races to vaccinate millions of people against the coronavirus, pregnant women face the extra challenge of not knowing whether the vaccines are safe for them or their unborn babies.

None of the recent COVID-19 vaccine trials, including those for Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson, enrolled pregnant or breastfeeding women because they consider them a high-risk group.

That was despite the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asking that pregnant and breastfeeding women be included in trials. The Food and Drug Administration even included pregnant women in the COVID-19 vaccine emergency use authorization (EUA) because of their higher risk of having a more severe disease.

Despite that lack of clinical trial data, more and more smaller studies are suggesting that the vaccines are safe for both mother and child.

Pfizer is now studying its two-dose vaccine in 4,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women to see how safe, tolerated, and robust their immune response is. Researchers will also look at how safe the vaccine is for infants and whether mothers pass along antibodies to children. But the preliminary results won’t be available until the end of the year, a Pfizer spokesperson says.

Without that information, pregnant women are less likely to get vaccinated, according to a large international survey. Less than 45% of pregnant women in the United States said they intended to get vaccinated even when they were told the vaccine was safe and 90% effective. That figure rises to 52% of pregnant women in 16 countries, including the United States, compared with 74% of nonpregnant women willing to be vaccinated. The findings were published online March 1, 2021, in the European Journal of Epidemiology.

The vaccine-hesitant pregnant women in the international study were most concerned that the COVID-19 vaccine could harm their developing fetuses, a worry related to the lack of clinical evidence in pregnant women, said lead researcher Julia Wu, ScD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health’s Human Immunomics Initiative in Boston.

The information vacuum also increases the chances that “people will fall victim to misinformation campaigns like the one on social media that claims that the COVID-19 vaccine causes infertility,” Dr. Wu said. This unfounded claim has deterred some women of childbearing age from getting the vaccine.
 

Deciding to get vaccinated

Frontline health care professionals were in the first group eligible to receive the vaccine in December 2020. “All of us who were pregnant ... had to decide whether to wait for the data, because we don’t know what the risks are, or go ahead and get it [the vaccine]. We had been dealing with the pandemic for months and were afraid of being exposed to the virus and infecting family members,” said Jacqueline Parchem, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.

Given the lack of safety data, the CDC guidance to pregnant women has been to consult with their doctors and that it’s a personal choice. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest vaccine guidance said that “there is no evidence that antibodies formed from COVID-19 vaccination cause any problem with pregnancy, including the development of the placenta.”

The CDC is monitoring vaccinated people through its v-safe program and reported on April 12 that more than 86,000 v-safe participants said they were pregnant when they were vaccinated.

Health care workers who were nursing their infants when they were eligible for the vaccine faced a similar dilemma as pregnant women – they lacked the data on them to make a truly informed decision.

“I was nervous about the vaccine side effects for myself and whether my son Bennett, who was about a year old, would experience any of these himself,” said Christa Carrig, a labor and delivery nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was breastfeeding at the time.

She and Dr. Parchem know that pregnant women with COVID-19 are more likely to have severe illness and complications such as high blood pressure and preterm delivery. “Pregnancy takes a toll on the body. When a woman gets COVID-19 and that insult is added, women who were otherwise young and healthy get much sicker than you would expect,” said Ms. Carrig.

“As a high-risk pregnancy specialist, I know that, with COVID, that babies don’t do well when moms are sick,” said Dr. Parchem.

Pregnant women accounted for more than 84,629 cases of COVID-19 and 95 deaths in the United States between Jan. 22 last year and April 12 this year, according to the CDC COVID data tracker.

Dr. Parchem and Ms. Carrig decided to get vaccinated because of their high risk of exposure to COVID-19 at work. After the second dose, Ms. Carrig reported chills but Bennett had no side effects from breastfeeding. Dr. Parchem, who delivered a healthy baby boy in February, reported no side effects other than a sore arm.

“There’s also a psychological benefit to returning to some sense of normalcy,” said Dr. Parchem. “My mother was finally able to visit us to see the new baby after we were all vaccinated. This was the first visit in more than a year.”
 

New study results

Ms. Carrig was one of 131 vaccinated hospital workers in the Boston area who took part in the first study to profile the immune response in pregnant and breastfeeding women and compare it with both nonpregnant and pregnant women who had COVID-19.

The study was not designed to evaluate the safety of the vaccines or whether they prevent COVID-19 illness and hospitalizations. That is the role of the large vaccine trials, the authors said.

The participants were aged 18-45 years and received both doses of either Pfizer or Moderna vaccines during one of their trimesters. They provided blood and/or breast milk samples after each vaccine dose, 2-6 weeks after the last dose, and at delivery for the 10 who gave birth during the study.

The vaccines produced a similar strong antibody response among the pregnant/breastfeeding women and nonpregnant women. Their antibody levels were much higher than those found in the pregnant women who had COVID-19, the researchers reported on March 25, 2021, in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

“This is important because a lot of people tend to think once they’ve had COVID-19, they are protected from the virus. This finding suggests that the vaccines produce a stronger antibody response than the infection itself, and this might be important for long-lasting protection against COVID-19,” said Dr. Parchem.

The study also addressed whether newborns benefit from the antibodies produced by their mothers. “In the 10 women who delivered, we detected antibodies in their umbilical cords and breast milk,” says Andrea Edlow, MD, lead researcher and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Newborns are particularly vulnerable to respiratory infections because they have small airways and their immune systems are underdeveloped. These infections can be lethal early in life.

“The public health strategy is to vaccinate mothers against respiratory viruses, bacteria, and parasites that neonates up to 6 months are exposed to. Influenza and pertussis (whooping cough) are two examples of vaccines that we give mothers that we know transfer [antibodies] across the umbilical cord,” said Dr. Edlow.

But this “passive transfer immunity” is different from active immunity, when the body produces its own antibody immune response, she explains.

A different study, also published in March, confirmed that antibodies were transferred from 27 vaccinated pregnant mothers to their infants when they delivered. A new finding was that the women who were vaccinated with both doses and earlier in their third semester passed on more antibodies than the women who were vaccinated later or with only one dose.


 

Impact of the studies

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine updated its guidance on counseling pregnant and lactating patients about the COVID-19 vaccines to include Dr. Edlow’s study.

“We were struck by how much pregnant and breastfeeding women want to participate in research and to help others in the same situation make decisions. I hope this will be an example to drug companies doing research on new vaccines in the future – that they should not be left behind and can make decisions themselves whether to participate after weighing the risks and benefits,” said Dr. Edlow.

She continues to enroll more vaccinated women in her study in the Boston area, including non–health care workers who have asked to take part.

“It was worth getting vaccinated and participating in the study. I know that I have antibodies and it worked and that I passed them on to Bennett. Also, I know that all the information is available for other women who are questioning whether to get vaccinated or not,” said Ms. Carrig.

Dr. Parchem is also taking part in the CDC’s v-safe pregnancy registry, which is collecting health and safety data on vaccinated pregnant women.

Before she was vaccinated, Dr. Parchem said, “my advice was very measured because we lacked data either saying that it definitely works or showing that it was unsafe. Now that we have this data supporting the benefits, I feel more confident in recommending the vaccines.”

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

A study using data from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic medical records shows a significant association between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among female veterans and an increased risk for incident ischemic heart disease (IHD).

The increased risk for IHD was highest among women younger than 40 with PTSD, and among racial and ethnic minorities.

“These women have been emerging as important targets for cardiovascular prevention, and our study suggests that PTSD may be an important psychosocial risk factor for IHD in these individuals,” wrote the researchers, led by Ramin Ebrahimi, MD, department of medicine, cardiology section, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Health Care System. “With the number of women veterans growing, it is critical to appreciate the health care needs of this relatively young and diverse patient population.”

The study results also have “important implications for earlier and more aggressive IHD risk assessment, monitoring and management in vulnerable women veterans,” they added. “Indeed, our findings support recent calls for cardiovascular risk screening in younger individuals and for the need to harness a broad range of clinicians who routinely treat younger women to maximize prevention efforts.”

The article was published online in JAMA Cardiology on March 17.
 

Increasing number of VHA users

“As an interventional cardiologist and the director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory, I noticed a significant number of the patients referred to the cath lab carried a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Dr. Ebrahimi said in an interview. “This intrigued me and started my journey into trying to understand how psychiatric disorders in general, and PTSD, may impact/interact with cardiovascular disorders,” he added.

The number of female veterans in the military has been increasing, and they now make up about 10% of the 20 million American veterans; that number is projected to exceed 2.2 million in the next 20 years, the authors wrote. Female veterans are also the fastest growing group of users of the VHA, they added.

IHD is the leading cause of death in women in the United States, despite the advancements in prevention and treatment. Although women are twice as likely to develop PTSD as are men, and it is even more likely in female veterans, much of the research has predominately been on male veterans, the authors wrote.

For this retrospective study, which used data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, the authors examined a cohort of female veterans who were 18 years or older who had used the VHA health care system between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2017.

Of the 828,997 female veterans, 151,030 had PTSD. Women excluded from the study were those who did not have any clinical encounters after their index visit, participants who had a diagnosis of IHD at or before the index visit, and those with incident IHD within 90 days of the index visit, allowing time between a PTSD diagnosis and IHD.

Propensity score matching on age at index visit, the number of previous visits, and the presence of traditional and female-specific cardiovascular risk factors, as well as mental and physical health conditions, was conducted to identify female veterans ever diagnosed with PTSD, who were matched in a 1:2 ratio to those never diagnosed with PTSD. In all, 132,923 women with PTSD and 265,846 women without PTSD were included, and data were analyzed for the period of Oct. 1, 2018, to Oct. 30, 2020.

IHD was defined as new-onset coronary artery disease, angina, or myocardial infarction–based ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic codes. Age, race, and ethnicity were self-reported.

The analytic sample consisted of relatively young female veterans (mean [SD] age at baseline, 40.1 [12.2] years) of various races (White, 57.6%; Black, 29.8%) and ethnicities, the authors reported.

Of the 9,940 women who experienced incident IHD during follow-up, 5,559 did not have  PTSD (2.1% of the overall population examined) and 4,381 had PTSD (3.3%). PTSD was significantly associated with an increased risk for IHD. Over the median follow-up of 4.9 years, female veterans with PTSD had a 44% higher rate of developing incident IHD compared with the female veterans without PTSD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.50).

In addition, those with PTSD who developed IHD were younger at diagnosis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [9.7]) than were patients without PTSD (mean [SD] age, 57.8 [10.7]). Effect sizes were largest in the group younger than 40 years (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.55-1.90) and decreased for older participants (HR for those ≥60 years, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.38)

The authors found a 49% to 66% increase in risk for IHD associated with PTSD in Black women (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.62) and those identified as non-White and non-Black (HR, 1.66; 95%, 1.33-2.08).

Women of all ethnic groups with PTSD were at higher risk of developing IHD, but this was especially true for Hispanic/Latina women (HR, 1.50; 95% CI 1.22-1.84), they noted.

The authors reported some limitations to their findings. The analytic sample could result in a lower ascertainment of certain conditions, such as psychiatric disorders, they wrote. Substance disorders were low in this study, possibly because of the younger age of female veterans in the sample. Because this study used VHA electronic medical records data, medical care outside of the VHA that was not paid for by the VHA could not be considered.

In addition, although this study used a large sample of female veterans, the findings cannot be generalized to female veterans outside of the VHA system, nonveteran women, or men, the researchers wrote.


 

A call to action

In an accompanying comment, Beth E. Cohen, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, points out that the physical implications for psychosocial conditions, including depression and PTSD, have been recognized for quite some time. For example, results of the INTERHEART case-control study of 30,000 people showed stress, depression, and stressful life events accounted for one-third the population-attributable risk for myocardial infarction.

As was also noted by Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues, much of the current research has been on male veterans, yet types of trauma differ among genders; women experience higher rates of military sexual trauma but lower rates of combat trauma, Dr. Cohen wrote. The PTSD symptoms, trajectory, and biological effects can differ for women and men, as can the pathogenesis, presentation, and outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

These findings, she said, “are an important extension of the prior literature and represent the largest study in female veterans to date. Although methods differ across studies, the magnitude of risk associated with PTSD was consistent with that found in prior studies of male veterans and nonveteran samples.”

The assessment of age-specific risk is also a strength of the study, “and has implications for clinical practice, because PTSD-associated risk was greatest in a younger group in whom CVD may be overlooked.”

Dr. Cohen addressed the limitations outlined by the authors, including ascertainment bias, severity of PTSD symptoms, and their chronicity, but added that “even in the context of these limitations, this study illustrates the importance of PTSD to the health of women veterans and the additional work needed to reduce their CVD risk.”

Clinical questions remain, she added. Screens for PTSD are widely used in the VHA, yet no studies have examined whether screening or early detection decrease CVD risk. In addition, no evidence suggests that screening for or treatment of PTSD improves cardiovascular outcomes.

“Given the challenges of answering these questions in observational studies, it will be important to incorporate measures of CVD risk and outcomes in trials of behavioral and medical therapies for patients with PTSD,” she wrote.

She added that collaborations among multidisciplinary patient care teams will be important. “The findings of this study represent a call to action for this important work to understand the cardiovascular effects of PTSD and improve the health and well-being of women veterans,” Dr. Cohen concluded.

This research was supported by Investigator-Initiated Research Award from the Department of Defense U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (Dr. Ebrahimi) and in part by grants from the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure and the Offices of Research and Development at the Northport, Durham, and Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs medical centers. Dr. Ebrahimi reported receiving grants from the Department of Defense during the conduct of the study. Disclosures for other authors are available in the paper. Dr. Cohen reports no disclosures.
 

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

A study using data from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic medical records shows a significant association between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among female veterans and an increased risk for incident ischemic heart disease (IHD).

The increased risk for IHD was highest among women younger than 40 with PTSD, and among racial and ethnic minorities.

“These women have been emerging as important targets for cardiovascular prevention, and our study suggests that PTSD may be an important psychosocial risk factor for IHD in these individuals,” wrote the researchers, led by Ramin Ebrahimi, MD, department of medicine, cardiology section, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Health Care System. “With the number of women veterans growing, it is critical to appreciate the health care needs of this relatively young and diverse patient population.”

The study results also have “important implications for earlier and more aggressive IHD risk assessment, monitoring and management in vulnerable women veterans,” they added. “Indeed, our findings support recent calls for cardiovascular risk screening in younger individuals and for the need to harness a broad range of clinicians who routinely treat younger women to maximize prevention efforts.”

The article was published online in JAMA Cardiology on March 17.
 

Increasing number of VHA users

“As an interventional cardiologist and the director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory, I noticed a significant number of the patients referred to the cath lab carried a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Dr. Ebrahimi said in an interview. “This intrigued me and started my journey into trying to understand how psychiatric disorders in general, and PTSD, may impact/interact with cardiovascular disorders,” he added.

The number of female veterans in the military has been increasing, and they now make up about 10% of the 20 million American veterans; that number is projected to exceed 2.2 million in the next 20 years, the authors wrote. Female veterans are also the fastest growing group of users of the VHA, they added.

IHD is the leading cause of death in women in the United States, despite the advancements in prevention and treatment. Although women are twice as likely to develop PTSD as are men, and it is even more likely in female veterans, much of the research has predominately been on male veterans, the authors wrote.

For this retrospective study, which used data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, the authors examined a cohort of female veterans who were 18 years or older who had used the VHA health care system between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2017.

Of the 828,997 female veterans, 151,030 had PTSD. Women excluded from the study were those who did not have any clinical encounters after their index visit, participants who had a diagnosis of IHD at or before the index visit, and those with incident IHD within 90 days of the index visit, allowing time between a PTSD diagnosis and IHD.

Propensity score matching on age at index visit, the number of previous visits, and the presence of traditional and female-specific cardiovascular risk factors, as well as mental and physical health conditions, was conducted to identify female veterans ever diagnosed with PTSD, who were matched in a 1:2 ratio to those never diagnosed with PTSD. In all, 132,923 women with PTSD and 265,846 women without PTSD were included, and data were analyzed for the period of Oct. 1, 2018, to Oct. 30, 2020.

IHD was defined as new-onset coronary artery disease, angina, or myocardial infarction–based ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic codes. Age, race, and ethnicity were self-reported.

The analytic sample consisted of relatively young female veterans (mean [SD] age at baseline, 40.1 [12.2] years) of various races (White, 57.6%; Black, 29.8%) and ethnicities, the authors reported.

Of the 9,940 women who experienced incident IHD during follow-up, 5,559 did not have  PTSD (2.1% of the overall population examined) and 4,381 had PTSD (3.3%). PTSD was significantly associated with an increased risk for IHD. Over the median follow-up of 4.9 years, female veterans with PTSD had a 44% higher rate of developing incident IHD compared with the female veterans without PTSD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.50).

In addition, those with PTSD who developed IHD were younger at diagnosis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [9.7]) than were patients without PTSD (mean [SD] age, 57.8 [10.7]). Effect sizes were largest in the group younger than 40 years (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.55-1.90) and decreased for older participants (HR for those ≥60 years, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.38)

The authors found a 49% to 66% increase in risk for IHD associated with PTSD in Black women (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.62) and those identified as non-White and non-Black (HR, 1.66; 95%, 1.33-2.08).

Women of all ethnic groups with PTSD were at higher risk of developing IHD, but this was especially true for Hispanic/Latina women (HR, 1.50; 95% CI 1.22-1.84), they noted.

The authors reported some limitations to their findings. The analytic sample could result in a lower ascertainment of certain conditions, such as psychiatric disorders, they wrote. Substance disorders were low in this study, possibly because of the younger age of female veterans in the sample. Because this study used VHA electronic medical records data, medical care outside of the VHA that was not paid for by the VHA could not be considered.

In addition, although this study used a large sample of female veterans, the findings cannot be generalized to female veterans outside of the VHA system, nonveteran women, or men, the researchers wrote.


 

A call to action

In an accompanying comment, Beth E. Cohen, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, points out that the physical implications for psychosocial conditions, including depression and PTSD, have been recognized for quite some time. For example, results of the INTERHEART case-control study of 30,000 people showed stress, depression, and stressful life events accounted for one-third the population-attributable risk for myocardial infarction.

As was also noted by Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues, much of the current research has been on male veterans, yet types of trauma differ among genders; women experience higher rates of military sexual trauma but lower rates of combat trauma, Dr. Cohen wrote. The PTSD symptoms, trajectory, and biological effects can differ for women and men, as can the pathogenesis, presentation, and outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

These findings, she said, “are an important extension of the prior literature and represent the largest study in female veterans to date. Although methods differ across studies, the magnitude of risk associated with PTSD was consistent with that found in prior studies of male veterans and nonveteran samples.”

The assessment of age-specific risk is also a strength of the study, “and has implications for clinical practice, because PTSD-associated risk was greatest in a younger group in whom CVD may be overlooked.”

Dr. Cohen addressed the limitations outlined by the authors, including ascertainment bias, severity of PTSD symptoms, and their chronicity, but added that “even in the context of these limitations, this study illustrates the importance of PTSD to the health of women veterans and the additional work needed to reduce their CVD risk.”

Clinical questions remain, she added. Screens for PTSD are widely used in the VHA, yet no studies have examined whether screening or early detection decrease CVD risk. In addition, no evidence suggests that screening for or treatment of PTSD improves cardiovascular outcomes.

“Given the challenges of answering these questions in observational studies, it will be important to incorporate measures of CVD risk and outcomes in trials of behavioral and medical therapies for patients with PTSD,” she wrote.

She added that collaborations among multidisciplinary patient care teams will be important. “The findings of this study represent a call to action for this important work to understand the cardiovascular effects of PTSD and improve the health and well-being of women veterans,” Dr. Cohen concluded.

This research was supported by Investigator-Initiated Research Award from the Department of Defense U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (Dr. Ebrahimi) and in part by grants from the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure and the Offices of Research and Development at the Northport, Durham, and Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs medical centers. Dr. Ebrahimi reported receiving grants from the Department of Defense during the conduct of the study. Disclosures for other authors are available in the paper. Dr. Cohen reports no disclosures.
 

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

A study using data from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) electronic medical records shows a significant association between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among female veterans and an increased risk for incident ischemic heart disease (IHD).

The increased risk for IHD was highest among women younger than 40 with PTSD, and among racial and ethnic minorities.

“These women have been emerging as important targets for cardiovascular prevention, and our study suggests that PTSD may be an important psychosocial risk factor for IHD in these individuals,” wrote the researchers, led by Ramin Ebrahimi, MD, department of medicine, cardiology section, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Health Care System. “With the number of women veterans growing, it is critical to appreciate the health care needs of this relatively young and diverse patient population.”

The study results also have “important implications for earlier and more aggressive IHD risk assessment, monitoring and management in vulnerable women veterans,” they added. “Indeed, our findings support recent calls for cardiovascular risk screening in younger individuals and for the need to harness a broad range of clinicians who routinely treat younger women to maximize prevention efforts.”

The article was published online in JAMA Cardiology on March 17.
 

Increasing number of VHA users

“As an interventional cardiologist and the director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory, I noticed a significant number of the patients referred to the cath lab carried a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder,” Dr. Ebrahimi said in an interview. “This intrigued me and started my journey into trying to understand how psychiatric disorders in general, and PTSD, may impact/interact with cardiovascular disorders,” he added.

The number of female veterans in the military has been increasing, and they now make up about 10% of the 20 million American veterans; that number is projected to exceed 2.2 million in the next 20 years, the authors wrote. Female veterans are also the fastest growing group of users of the VHA, they added.

IHD is the leading cause of death in women in the United States, despite the advancements in prevention and treatment. Although women are twice as likely to develop PTSD as are men, and it is even more likely in female veterans, much of the research has predominately been on male veterans, the authors wrote.

For this retrospective study, which used data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse, the authors examined a cohort of female veterans who were 18 years or older who had used the VHA health care system between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2017.

Of the 828,997 female veterans, 151,030 had PTSD. Women excluded from the study were those who did not have any clinical encounters after their index visit, participants who had a diagnosis of IHD at or before the index visit, and those with incident IHD within 90 days of the index visit, allowing time between a PTSD diagnosis and IHD.

Propensity score matching on age at index visit, the number of previous visits, and the presence of traditional and female-specific cardiovascular risk factors, as well as mental and physical health conditions, was conducted to identify female veterans ever diagnosed with PTSD, who were matched in a 1:2 ratio to those never diagnosed with PTSD. In all, 132,923 women with PTSD and 265,846 women without PTSD were included, and data were analyzed for the period of Oct. 1, 2018, to Oct. 30, 2020.

IHD was defined as new-onset coronary artery disease, angina, or myocardial infarction–based ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic codes. Age, race, and ethnicity were self-reported.

The analytic sample consisted of relatively young female veterans (mean [SD] age at baseline, 40.1 [12.2] years) of various races (White, 57.6%; Black, 29.8%) and ethnicities, the authors reported.

Of the 9,940 women who experienced incident IHD during follow-up, 5,559 did not have  PTSD (2.1% of the overall population examined) and 4,381 had PTSD (3.3%). PTSD was significantly associated with an increased risk for IHD. Over the median follow-up of 4.9 years, female veterans with PTSD had a 44% higher rate of developing incident IHD compared with the female veterans without PTSD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.50).

In addition, those with PTSD who developed IHD were younger at diagnosis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [9.7]) than were patients without PTSD (mean [SD] age, 57.8 [10.7]). Effect sizes were largest in the group younger than 40 years (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.55-1.90) and decreased for older participants (HR for those ≥60 years, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.38)

The authors found a 49% to 66% increase in risk for IHD associated with PTSD in Black women (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.62) and those identified as non-White and non-Black (HR, 1.66; 95%, 1.33-2.08).

Women of all ethnic groups with PTSD were at higher risk of developing IHD, but this was especially true for Hispanic/Latina women (HR, 1.50; 95% CI 1.22-1.84), they noted.

The authors reported some limitations to their findings. The analytic sample could result in a lower ascertainment of certain conditions, such as psychiatric disorders, they wrote. Substance disorders were low in this study, possibly because of the younger age of female veterans in the sample. Because this study used VHA electronic medical records data, medical care outside of the VHA that was not paid for by the VHA could not be considered.

In addition, although this study used a large sample of female veterans, the findings cannot be generalized to female veterans outside of the VHA system, nonveteran women, or men, the researchers wrote.


 

A call to action

In an accompanying comment, Beth E. Cohen, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, points out that the physical implications for psychosocial conditions, including depression and PTSD, have been recognized for quite some time. For example, results of the INTERHEART case-control study of 30,000 people showed stress, depression, and stressful life events accounted for one-third the population-attributable risk for myocardial infarction.

As was also noted by Dr. Ebrahimi and colleagues, much of the current research has been on male veterans, yet types of trauma differ among genders; women experience higher rates of military sexual trauma but lower rates of combat trauma, Dr. Cohen wrote. The PTSD symptoms, trajectory, and biological effects can differ for women and men, as can the pathogenesis, presentation, and outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

These findings, she said, “are an important extension of the prior literature and represent the largest study in female veterans to date. Although methods differ across studies, the magnitude of risk associated with PTSD was consistent with that found in prior studies of male veterans and nonveteran samples.”

The assessment of age-specific risk is also a strength of the study, “and has implications for clinical practice, because PTSD-associated risk was greatest in a younger group in whom CVD may be overlooked.”

Dr. Cohen addressed the limitations outlined by the authors, including ascertainment bias, severity of PTSD symptoms, and their chronicity, but added that “even in the context of these limitations, this study illustrates the importance of PTSD to the health of women veterans and the additional work needed to reduce their CVD risk.”

Clinical questions remain, she added. Screens for PTSD are widely used in the VHA, yet no studies have examined whether screening or early detection decrease CVD risk. In addition, no evidence suggests that screening for or treatment of PTSD improves cardiovascular outcomes.

“Given the challenges of answering these questions in observational studies, it will be important to incorporate measures of CVD risk and outcomes in trials of behavioral and medical therapies for patients with PTSD,” she wrote.

She added that collaborations among multidisciplinary patient care teams will be important. “The findings of this study represent a call to action for this important work to understand the cardiovascular effects of PTSD and improve the health and well-being of women veterans,” Dr. Cohen concluded.

This research was supported by Investigator-Initiated Research Award from the Department of Defense U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (Dr. Ebrahimi) and in part by grants from the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure and the Offices of Research and Development at the Northport, Durham, and Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs medical centers. Dr. Ebrahimi reported receiving grants from the Department of Defense during the conduct of the study. Disclosures for other authors are available in the paper. Dr. Cohen reports no disclosures.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new estrogen for the first time in more than 50 years.

The novel combined oral contraceptive, marketed as Nextstellis, contains 3 mg drospirenone (DRSP) and 14.2 mg of estetrol (E4) in tablet form. Estetrol is an estrogen that is naturally produced during pregnancy, but will now be produced from a plant source; it has not previously been used in oral contraceptives.

Approval of the unique estetrol/drospirenone combination was based on data from a pair of phase 3 clinical trials including 3,725 women. Overall, Nextstellis was safe and effective while meeting its primary endpoint of pregnancy prevention, according to a company press release. Participants also reported favorable results on secondary endpoints including cycle control, bleeding profile, safety, and tolerability.

Although many women take short-acting contraceptives containing estrogen and progestin, concerns persist about side effects, said Mitchell Creinin, MD, of the University of California, in the press release. In addition to providing effective contraception, the drug showed minimal impact on specific markers of concern, including triglycerides, cholesterol, and glucose, as well as weight and endocrine markers, Dr. Creinin said.

Nextstellis was developed by the Belgian biotech company Mithra Pharmaceuticals, and the drug is licensed for distribution in Australia and the United States by Mayne Pharma, with an expected launch at the end of June 2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new estrogen for the first time in more than 50 years.

The novel combined oral contraceptive, marketed as Nextstellis, contains 3 mg drospirenone (DRSP) and 14.2 mg of estetrol (E4) in tablet form. Estetrol is an estrogen that is naturally produced during pregnancy, but will now be produced from a plant source; it has not previously been used in oral contraceptives.

Approval of the unique estetrol/drospirenone combination was based on data from a pair of phase 3 clinical trials including 3,725 women. Overall, Nextstellis was safe and effective while meeting its primary endpoint of pregnancy prevention, according to a company press release. Participants also reported favorable results on secondary endpoints including cycle control, bleeding profile, safety, and tolerability.

Although many women take short-acting contraceptives containing estrogen and progestin, concerns persist about side effects, said Mitchell Creinin, MD, of the University of California, in the press release. In addition to providing effective contraception, the drug showed minimal impact on specific markers of concern, including triglycerides, cholesterol, and glucose, as well as weight and endocrine markers, Dr. Creinin said.

Nextstellis was developed by the Belgian biotech company Mithra Pharmaceuticals, and the drug is licensed for distribution in Australia and the United States by Mayne Pharma, with an expected launch at the end of June 2021.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a new estrogen for the first time in more than 50 years.

The novel combined oral contraceptive, marketed as Nextstellis, contains 3 mg drospirenone (DRSP) and 14.2 mg of estetrol (E4) in tablet form. Estetrol is an estrogen that is naturally produced during pregnancy, but will now be produced from a plant source; it has not previously been used in oral contraceptives.

Approval of the unique estetrol/drospirenone combination was based on data from a pair of phase 3 clinical trials including 3,725 women. Overall, Nextstellis was safe and effective while meeting its primary endpoint of pregnancy prevention, according to a company press release. Participants also reported favorable results on secondary endpoints including cycle control, bleeding profile, safety, and tolerability.

Although many women take short-acting contraceptives containing estrogen and progestin, concerns persist about side effects, said Mitchell Creinin, MD, of the University of California, in the press release. In addition to providing effective contraception, the drug showed minimal impact on specific markers of concern, including triglycerides, cholesterol, and glucose, as well as weight and endocrine markers, Dr. Creinin said.

Nextstellis was developed by the Belgian biotech company Mithra Pharmaceuticals, and the drug is licensed for distribution in Australia and the United States by Mayne Pharma, with an expected launch at the end of June 2021.

A rare form of venous thromboembolism (VTE) has developed in premenopausal women who have received the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

This week we learned that of the more than 6.8 million individuals in the United States who received the single-dose J&J vaccine, six women aged 18-48 years have been diagnosed with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and all had thrombocytopenia. In each case, symptoms were first noted 1-2 weeks after vaccination. The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended a pause in the administration of this vaccine.

Women’s health clinicians are already hearing from concerned patients, who understandably have questions about what this news means for them.

If they have already received the J&J vaccine within the past 3 weeks, I advise them that, although risks for any vaccine-related problems are extremely low, they should be mindful of new-onset leg or abdominal pain, or an unusual or severe headache. Such patients should contact their physician as soon as possible, and if they cannot be seen quickly, it would be appropriate to visit a hospital ED. When seeking medical care, patients should specify details of their vaccination history. Depending on the individual issues present, women with suggestive symptoms should receive blood work, Doppler venous studies (if there is a suspicion of lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis), and appropriate imaging (if there is concern for cerebral venous sinus thrombosis or pulmonary embolism).

As physicians and scientists at the CDC and FDA dig into this issue, I assume they are asking questions to determine whether the affected women have any factors that might increase their baseline risk for VTE, such as:

• A body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2
• Use of combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives (pill, ring, or patch)
• Known or suspected chronic inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, or
• Known familial or other thrombophilic conditions or chronic
• Recent prolonged immobility, such as a long airplane or automobile trip, which might increase risk for VTE

cookie_cutter/Thinkstock

Experts say that the risk for a serious adverse event following receipt of the J&J vaccine is outweighed by the benefits of vaccination against COVID disease. However, that may not be enough to allay concerns among some premenopausal women.

Even if the “pause” in the administration of the vaccine is lifted, some women may be asking whether they should receive J&J’s viral vector vaccine or request one of the messenger RNA vaccines. I will be looking to the expert opinions of Anthony S. Fauci, MD, and advice from the CDC and FDA for guidance here. However, it may be reasonable to steer high-risk reproductive-age women away from the J&J vaccine in favor of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, if these options are available.

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

A rare form of venous thromboembolism (VTE) has developed in premenopausal women who have received the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

This week we learned that of the more than 6.8 million individuals in the United States who received the single-dose J&J vaccine, six women aged 18-48 years have been diagnosed with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and all had thrombocytopenia. In each case, symptoms were first noted 1-2 weeks after vaccination. The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended a pause in the administration of this vaccine.

Women’s health clinicians are already hearing from concerned patients, who understandably have questions about what this news means for them.

If they have already received the J&J vaccine within the past 3 weeks, I advise them that, although risks for any vaccine-related problems are extremely low, they should be mindful of new-onset leg or abdominal pain, or an unusual or severe headache. Such patients should contact their physician as soon as possible, and if they cannot be seen quickly, it would be appropriate to visit a hospital ED. When seeking medical care, patients should specify details of their vaccination history. Depending on the individual issues present, women with suggestive symptoms should receive blood work, Doppler venous studies (if there is a suspicion of lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis), and appropriate imaging (if there is concern for cerebral venous sinus thrombosis or pulmonary embolism).

As physicians and scientists at the CDC and FDA dig into this issue, I assume they are asking questions to determine whether the affected women have any factors that might increase their baseline risk for VTE, such as:

• A body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2
• Use of combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives (pill, ring, or patch)
• Known or suspected chronic inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, or
• Known familial or other thrombophilic conditions or chronic
• Recent prolonged immobility, such as a long airplane or automobile trip, which might increase risk for VTE

cookie_cutter/Thinkstock

Experts say that the risk for a serious adverse event following receipt of the J&J vaccine is outweighed by the benefits of vaccination against COVID disease. However, that may not be enough to allay concerns among some premenopausal women.

Even if the “pause” in the administration of the vaccine is lifted, some women may be asking whether they should receive J&J’s viral vector vaccine or request one of the messenger RNA vaccines. I will be looking to the expert opinions of Anthony S. Fauci, MD, and advice from the CDC and FDA for guidance here. However, it may be reasonable to steer high-risk reproductive-age women away from the J&J vaccine in favor of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, if these options are available.

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

A rare form of venous thromboembolism (VTE) has developed in premenopausal women who have received the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

This week we learned that of the more than 6.8 million individuals in the United States who received the single-dose J&J vaccine, six women aged 18-48 years have been diagnosed with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and all had thrombocytopenia. In each case, symptoms were first noted 1-2 weeks after vaccination. The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended a pause in the administration of this vaccine.

Women’s health clinicians are already hearing from concerned patients, who understandably have questions about what this news means for them.

If they have already received the J&J vaccine within the past 3 weeks, I advise them that, although risks for any vaccine-related problems are extremely low, they should be mindful of new-onset leg or abdominal pain, or an unusual or severe headache. Such patients should contact their physician as soon as possible, and if they cannot be seen quickly, it would be appropriate to visit a hospital ED. When seeking medical care, patients should specify details of their vaccination history. Depending on the individual issues present, women with suggestive symptoms should receive blood work, Doppler venous studies (if there is a suspicion of lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis), and appropriate imaging (if there is concern for cerebral venous sinus thrombosis or pulmonary embolism).

As physicians and scientists at the CDC and FDA dig into this issue, I assume they are asking questions to determine whether the affected women have any factors that might increase their baseline risk for VTE, such as:

• A body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2
• Use of combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives (pill, ring, or patch)
• Known or suspected chronic inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, or
• Known familial or other thrombophilic conditions or chronic
• Recent prolonged immobility, such as a long airplane or automobile trip, which might increase risk for VTE

cookie_cutter/Thinkstock

Experts say that the risk for a serious adverse event following receipt of the J&J vaccine is outweighed by the benefits of vaccination against COVID disease. However, that may not be enough to allay concerns among some premenopausal women.

Even if the “pause” in the administration of the vaccine is lifted, some women may be asking whether they should receive J&J’s viral vector vaccine or request one of the messenger RNA vaccines. I will be looking to the expert opinions of Anthony S. Fauci, MD, and advice from the CDC and FDA for guidance here. However, it may be reasonable to steer high-risk reproductive-age women away from the J&J vaccine in favor of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, if these options are available.

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

Postpartum women with commercial health insurance use substantially more inpatient and outpatient care than nonpostpartum women, particularly in the first 2 months after giving birth, according to a retrospective cohort study published in the May 2021 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“These findings are consistent with previous studies that have documented elevated postpartum ED and hospitalization rates, and we contribute new evidence that indicates postpartum health care utilization rates are significantly higher than rates of health care utilization in the general population of reproductive aged women when they are not pregnant or postpartum,” Maria W. Steenland, ScD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote. “Most notably, postpartum women were more than three times more likely to have an ED visit and eight times more likely to be hospitalized than nonpostpartum women in the early postpartum period.”

Approximately one-third of maternal deaths occur between 1 week and 1 year post partum, the authors noted in their background information. The overall U.S. maternal mortality rate was 17.4 per 100,000 live births in 2018, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“This study underscores the importance of access to health care for women, in particular in the postpartum period,” Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Maternal mortality is a public health crisis. The majority of maternal deaths are preventable and occur up to 1 year postpartum. Studies such as these are needed as the postpartum period is a critical time in the care of reproductive age women that is often overlooked.”

Using data from a large national commercial claims database, the researchers analyzed data from 149,563 women aged 18-44 years who gave birth in 2016 and from 2,048,831 women who were neither pregnant nor post partum during the same study period. In postpartum women, the researchers specifically looked at hospitalization, preventive visits, problem visits, and ED visits during three periods for postpartum women: early postpartum, defined as within 21 days of giving birth; postpartum, defined as 21-60 days after birth; and extended postpartum, defined as 61 days to 1 year after birth. These data were then compared with equivalent periods in nonpostpartum women.

“For the comparison group, we created a random start date of follow-up by generating a random variable between 0 and 365 and adding this integer to Jan. 1, 2016,” the authors explained. “These start dates correspond to the range of possible follow-up start dates among postpartum women who gave birth in 2016.”

The groups differed in age composition: 62% of the postpartum women were between 25 and 34 years old while the nonpostpartum women were more evenly distributed across the age range. A higher proportion of nonpostpartum women had a chronic disease, but median income and geographic region were similar between the groups. Just over a third of the postpartum women (36%) had a cesarean delivery, higher than the 2016 national average of 32%.

Nearly a quarter (23.7%) of postpartum women had a problem visit in the early postpartum period, compared with one in five (19.7%) nonpostpartum women in the equivalent period. This 4-point difference increased to an 4.8-point difference after adjustment for age group, chronic disease, geographic region, income, and month when follow-up began.

Postpartum women were also three times more likely to have an ED visit (3.2%) in the early postpartum period than nonpostpartum women (1%). Postpartum women’s problem visits and ED visits were most prevalent in the first 2 weeks after childbirth: 12.4% in the first week and 10.4% in the second. Complaints for these visits primarily included urinary tract infections and other genitourinary issues, hypertension, breast or breastfeeding issues, and respiratory issues, such as shortness of breath or chest pain. Hospitalization rates were also higher in the early postpartum period for postpartum women (0.8%) than nonpostpartum women (0.1%).

Problem visits showed a similar pattern during the postpartum period from 21 to 60 days after birth: 39.4% of postpartum women, compared with 30.2% of nonpostpartum women. Rate differences were narrower for ED visits (2% post partum vs. 1.9% non–post partum) and hospitalization (0.3% post partum vs. 0.2% non–post partum), but the differences remained significant, and ED visits were still 0.3 points higher after adjustment.

The biggest differences between the groups in the first 2 months occurred with preventive care. In the early postpartum period, 15% of postpartum women had a preventive visit, compared with 3.3% of nonpostpartum women. Similarly, the rates were 28.2% in postpartum women and 6.5% in nonpostpartum women in the postpartum period.

Differences between the groups evened out in the extended postpartum period, when postpartum women had slightly fewer preventive visits (42.5%) than nonpostpartum women (42.7%). ED rates (11.2% postpartum vs 11.1%) and hospitalization rates (1.4% postpartum vs. 1.6%) were similar, but postpartum women were significantly more likely to have problem visits (79.2%) in the year after childbirth than nonpostpartum women (72.8%).

“Compared with postpartum women overall, postpartum women with chronic disease, pregnancy complications, and cesarean births were more likely to receive health care of all types in the early postpartum period,” the researchers reported. “Of the three subgroups, health care use was highest among postpartum women with chronic disease, among whom 35% had at least one outpatient problem visit, 5% had an ED visit, and 1.3% were hospitalized within the first 20 days of childbirth.”

These findings as a whole point to an increased need for health care not only in the first 3 weeks after women give birth but “beyond the traditional 6-week postpartum period, which adds to the argument that the way we care for women in the postpartum period should be revised,” Dr. Krishna said.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists updated their postpartum recommendations in 2018 to advise that all postpartum women have a follow-up visit in the first 3 weeks after birth.

Dr. Krishna reiterated that postpartum patients should ideally have an initial follow-up within 3 weeks of giving birth, which the rapid expansion of telehealth has made more viable for both clinicians and mothers.

The authors similarly noted that telehealth and home visits “are promising options to promote early and consistent health care contact and reduce known barriers to postpartum care seeking such as fatigue, lack of transportation, and child care.” Predischarge guidance may also help meet postpartum patients’ health care needs.

“Health care professionals also may be able to reduce the escalation of common early postpartum problems identified in this study (e.g., respiratory problems, pain, urinary tract infections) with anticipatory postpartum counseling and care before hospital discharge such as ensuring that women have inhalers at home, developing a pain management plan, and screening for signs of urinary tract infection,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Krishna also pointed out the need to address racial inequalities in health care and material mortality.

“Black women have a maternal mortality rate two times the rate of non-Hispanic White women,” Dr. Krishna said. “One way to address health disparities between commercially insured and uninsured women is improving access to health care through Medicaid expansion for at least 1 year post partum. States that participated in the Affordable Care Acts Medicaid expansion have noted improvement in maternal mortality and a decrease in racial/ethnic inequities.”

The research was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Data was provided by Aetna, Humana, Kaiser Permanente and UnitedHealthcare. The authors and Dr. Krishna reported no disclosures.

Postpartum women with commercial health insurance use substantially more inpatient and outpatient care than nonpostpartum women, particularly in the first 2 months after giving birth, according to a retrospective cohort study published in the May 2021 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“These findings are consistent with previous studies that have documented elevated postpartum ED and hospitalization rates, and we contribute new evidence that indicates postpartum health care utilization rates are significantly higher than rates of health care utilization in the general population of reproductive aged women when they are not pregnant or postpartum,” Maria W. Steenland, ScD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote. “Most notably, postpartum women were more than three times more likely to have an ED visit and eight times more likely to be hospitalized than nonpostpartum women in the early postpartum period.”

Approximately one-third of maternal deaths occur between 1 week and 1 year post partum, the authors noted in their background information. The overall U.S. maternal mortality rate was 17.4 per 100,000 live births in 2018, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“This study underscores the importance of access to health care for women, in particular in the postpartum period,” Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Maternal mortality is a public health crisis. The majority of maternal deaths are preventable and occur up to 1 year postpartum. Studies such as these are needed as the postpartum period is a critical time in the care of reproductive age women that is often overlooked.”

Using data from a large national commercial claims database, the researchers analyzed data from 149,563 women aged 18-44 years who gave birth in 2016 and from 2,048,831 women who were neither pregnant nor post partum during the same study period. In postpartum women, the researchers specifically looked at hospitalization, preventive visits, problem visits, and ED visits during three periods for postpartum women: early postpartum, defined as within 21 days of giving birth; postpartum, defined as 21-60 days after birth; and extended postpartum, defined as 61 days to 1 year after birth. These data were then compared with equivalent periods in nonpostpartum women.

“For the comparison group, we created a random start date of follow-up by generating a random variable between 0 and 365 and adding this integer to Jan. 1, 2016,” the authors explained. “These start dates correspond to the range of possible follow-up start dates among postpartum women who gave birth in 2016.”

The groups differed in age composition: 62% of the postpartum women were between 25 and 34 years old while the nonpostpartum women were more evenly distributed across the age range. A higher proportion of nonpostpartum women had a chronic disease, but median income and geographic region were similar between the groups. Just over a third of the postpartum women (36%) had a cesarean delivery, higher than the 2016 national average of 32%.

Nearly a quarter (23.7%) of postpartum women had a problem visit in the early postpartum period, compared with one in five (19.7%) nonpostpartum women in the equivalent period. This 4-point difference increased to an 4.8-point difference after adjustment for age group, chronic disease, geographic region, income, and month when follow-up began.

Postpartum women were also three times more likely to have an ED visit (3.2%) in the early postpartum period than nonpostpartum women (1%). Postpartum women’s problem visits and ED visits were most prevalent in the first 2 weeks after childbirth: 12.4% in the first week and 10.4% in the second. Complaints for these visits primarily included urinary tract infections and other genitourinary issues, hypertension, breast or breastfeeding issues, and respiratory issues, such as shortness of breath or chest pain. Hospitalization rates were also higher in the early postpartum period for postpartum women (0.8%) than nonpostpartum women (0.1%).

Problem visits showed a similar pattern during the postpartum period from 21 to 60 days after birth: 39.4% of postpartum women, compared with 30.2% of nonpostpartum women. Rate differences were narrower for ED visits (2% post partum vs. 1.9% non–post partum) and hospitalization (0.3% post partum vs. 0.2% non–post partum), but the differences remained significant, and ED visits were still 0.3 points higher after adjustment.

The biggest differences between the groups in the first 2 months occurred with preventive care. In the early postpartum period, 15% of postpartum women had a preventive visit, compared with 3.3% of nonpostpartum women. Similarly, the rates were 28.2% in postpartum women and 6.5% in nonpostpartum women in the postpartum period.

Differences between the groups evened out in the extended postpartum period, when postpartum women had slightly fewer preventive visits (42.5%) than nonpostpartum women (42.7%). ED rates (11.2% postpartum vs 11.1%) and hospitalization rates (1.4% postpartum vs. 1.6%) were similar, but postpartum women were significantly more likely to have problem visits (79.2%) in the year after childbirth than nonpostpartum women (72.8%).

“Compared with postpartum women overall, postpartum women with chronic disease, pregnancy complications, and cesarean births were more likely to receive health care of all types in the early postpartum period,” the researchers reported. “Of the three subgroups, health care use was highest among postpartum women with chronic disease, among whom 35% had at least one outpatient problem visit, 5% had an ED visit, and 1.3% were hospitalized within the first 20 days of childbirth.”

These findings as a whole point to an increased need for health care not only in the first 3 weeks after women give birth but “beyond the traditional 6-week postpartum period, which adds to the argument that the way we care for women in the postpartum period should be revised,” Dr. Krishna said.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists updated their postpartum recommendations in 2018 to advise that all postpartum women have a follow-up visit in the first 3 weeks after birth.

Dr. Krishna reiterated that postpartum patients should ideally have an initial follow-up within 3 weeks of giving birth, which the rapid expansion of telehealth has made more viable for both clinicians and mothers.

The authors similarly noted that telehealth and home visits “are promising options to promote early and consistent health care contact and reduce known barriers to postpartum care seeking such as fatigue, lack of transportation, and child care.” Predischarge guidance may also help meet postpartum patients’ health care needs.

“Health care professionals also may be able to reduce the escalation of common early postpartum problems identified in this study (e.g., respiratory problems, pain, urinary tract infections) with anticipatory postpartum counseling and care before hospital discharge such as ensuring that women have inhalers at home, developing a pain management plan, and screening for signs of urinary tract infection,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Krishna also pointed out the need to address racial inequalities in health care and material mortality.

“Black women have a maternal mortality rate two times the rate of non-Hispanic White women,” Dr. Krishna said. “One way to address health disparities between commercially insured and uninsured women is improving access to health care through Medicaid expansion for at least 1 year post partum. States that participated in the Affordable Care Acts Medicaid expansion have noted improvement in maternal mortality and a decrease in racial/ethnic inequities.”

The research was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Data was provided by Aetna, Humana, Kaiser Permanente and UnitedHealthcare. The authors and Dr. Krishna reported no disclosures.

Postpartum women with commercial health insurance use substantially more inpatient and outpatient care than nonpostpartum women, particularly in the first 2 months after giving birth, according to a retrospective cohort study published in the May 2021 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“These findings are consistent with previous studies that have documented elevated postpartum ED and hospitalization rates, and we contribute new evidence that indicates postpartum health care utilization rates are significantly higher than rates of health care utilization in the general population of reproductive aged women when they are not pregnant or postpartum,” Maria W. Steenland, ScD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote. “Most notably, postpartum women were more than three times more likely to have an ED visit and eight times more likely to be hospitalized than nonpostpartum women in the early postpartum period.”

Approximately one-third of maternal deaths occur between 1 week and 1 year post partum, the authors noted in their background information. The overall U.S. maternal mortality rate was 17.4 per 100,000 live births in 2018, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“This study underscores the importance of access to health care for women, in particular in the postpartum period,” Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview. “Maternal mortality is a public health crisis. The majority of maternal deaths are preventable and occur up to 1 year postpartum. Studies such as these are needed as the postpartum period is a critical time in the care of reproductive age women that is often overlooked.”

Using data from a large national commercial claims database, the researchers analyzed data from 149,563 women aged 18-44 years who gave birth in 2016 and from 2,048,831 women who were neither pregnant nor post partum during the same study period. In postpartum women, the researchers specifically looked at hospitalization, preventive visits, problem visits, and ED visits during three periods for postpartum women: early postpartum, defined as within 21 days of giving birth; postpartum, defined as 21-60 days after birth; and extended postpartum, defined as 61 days to 1 year after birth. These data were then compared with equivalent periods in nonpostpartum women.

“For the comparison group, we created a random start date of follow-up by generating a random variable between 0 and 365 and adding this integer to Jan. 1, 2016,” the authors explained. “These start dates correspond to the range of possible follow-up start dates among postpartum women who gave birth in 2016.”

The groups differed in age composition: 62% of the postpartum women were between 25 and 34 years old while the nonpostpartum women were more evenly distributed across the age range. A higher proportion of nonpostpartum women had a chronic disease, but median income and geographic region were similar between the groups. Just over a third of the postpartum women (36%) had a cesarean delivery, higher than the 2016 national average of 32%.

Nearly a quarter (23.7%) of postpartum women had a problem visit in the early postpartum period, compared with one in five (19.7%) nonpostpartum women in the equivalent period. This 4-point difference increased to an 4.8-point difference after adjustment for age group, chronic disease, geographic region, income, and month when follow-up began.

Postpartum women were also three times more likely to have an ED visit (3.2%) in the early postpartum period than nonpostpartum women (1%). Postpartum women’s problem visits and ED visits were most prevalent in the first 2 weeks after childbirth: 12.4% in the first week and 10.4% in the second. Complaints for these visits primarily included urinary tract infections and other genitourinary issues, hypertension, breast or breastfeeding issues, and respiratory issues, such as shortness of breath or chest pain. Hospitalization rates were also higher in the early postpartum period for postpartum women (0.8%) than nonpostpartum women (0.1%).

Problem visits showed a similar pattern during the postpartum period from 21 to 60 days after birth: 39.4% of postpartum women, compared with 30.2% of nonpostpartum women. Rate differences were narrower for ED visits (2% post partum vs. 1.9% non–post partum) and hospitalization (0.3% post partum vs. 0.2% non–post partum), but the differences remained significant, and ED visits were still 0.3 points higher after adjustment.

The biggest differences between the groups in the first 2 months occurred with preventive care. In the early postpartum period, 15% of postpartum women had a preventive visit, compared with 3.3% of nonpostpartum women. Similarly, the rates were 28.2% in postpartum women and 6.5% in nonpostpartum women in the postpartum period.

Differences between the groups evened out in the extended postpartum period, when postpartum women had slightly fewer preventive visits (42.5%) than nonpostpartum women (42.7%). ED rates (11.2% postpartum vs 11.1%) and hospitalization rates (1.4% postpartum vs. 1.6%) were similar, but postpartum women were significantly more likely to have problem visits (79.2%) in the year after childbirth than nonpostpartum women (72.8%).

“Compared with postpartum women overall, postpartum women with chronic disease, pregnancy complications, and cesarean births were more likely to receive health care of all types in the early postpartum period,” the researchers reported. “Of the three subgroups, health care use was highest among postpartum women with chronic disease, among whom 35% had at least one outpatient problem visit, 5% had an ED visit, and 1.3% were hospitalized within the first 20 days of childbirth.”

These findings as a whole point to an increased need for health care not only in the first 3 weeks after women give birth but “beyond the traditional 6-week postpartum period, which adds to the argument that the way we care for women in the postpartum period should be revised,” Dr. Krishna said.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists updated their postpartum recommendations in 2018 to advise that all postpartum women have a follow-up visit in the first 3 weeks after birth.

Dr. Krishna reiterated that postpartum patients should ideally have an initial follow-up within 3 weeks of giving birth, which the rapid expansion of telehealth has made more viable for both clinicians and mothers.

The authors similarly noted that telehealth and home visits “are promising options to promote early and consistent health care contact and reduce known barriers to postpartum care seeking such as fatigue, lack of transportation, and child care.” Predischarge guidance may also help meet postpartum patients’ health care needs.

“Health care professionals also may be able to reduce the escalation of common early postpartum problems identified in this study (e.g., respiratory problems, pain, urinary tract infections) with anticipatory postpartum counseling and care before hospital discharge such as ensuring that women have inhalers at home, developing a pain management plan, and screening for signs of urinary tract infection,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Krishna also pointed out the need to address racial inequalities in health care and material mortality.

“Black women have a maternal mortality rate two times the rate of non-Hispanic White women,” Dr. Krishna said. “One way to address health disparities between commercially insured and uninsured women is improving access to health care through Medicaid expansion for at least 1 year post partum. States that participated in the Affordable Care Acts Medicaid expansion have noted improvement in maternal mortality and a decrease in racial/ethnic inequities.”

The research was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Data was provided by Aetna, Humana, Kaiser Permanente and UnitedHealthcare. The authors and Dr. Krishna reported no disclosures.

Results from a phase 3 trial indicate that removing cyclophosphamide from standard chemotherapy can improve fertility without compromising survival in women with breast cancer.

Researchers found that omitting cyclophosphamide from a regimen of epirubicin and paclitaxel increased the likelihood of an early return of menses, and there was a trend toward improved disease-free survival.

The phase 3 SPECTRUM trial involved 521 women with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who had undergone definitive surgery at one of eight institutions in China. The average age of the patients was 34 years.

Cyclophosphamide is a standard component of adjuvant chemotherapy, but it’s strongly associated with premature ovarian failure and infertility.

“For the first time, we demonstrate that a cyclophosphamide-free regimen [can] increase the rate of menses recovery without compromising survival,” said the researchers, led by Ke-Da Yu, MD, PhD, of the Fudan University Shanghai (China) Cancer Center.

They also reported that, among the women who tried to conceive at a later date, there was a higher pregnancy success rate among those who did not take cyclophosphamide.

“Our findings can be extrapolated to patients with other subtypes of breast cancer, such as triple-negative or HER2-enriched, because the effect of paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide on menstrual resumption is not subtype specific,” the investigators commented.

The results were published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This is the first prospective trial specifically designed to find an adjuvant breast cancer regimen less toxic to the ovaries. The “investigators ... should be applauded,” wrote Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, of the University of Genova (Italy), and Ann Partridge, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

Although promising, there are a few caveats, the editorialists wrote. In a past trial of doxorubicin and docetaxel in lieu of a cyclophosphamide regimen, disease outcomes were inferior. There is also a question as to whether the SPECTRUM results apply to non-Asian women.

The editorialists also noted that enrollment in this trial ended in 2016, before it was recommended that ovarian suppression be used in conjunction with adjuvant chemotherapy to prevent premature menopause.

“[It’s] notable that the absolute benefit in reducing [premature ovarian insufficiency] rates with the use of a cyclophosphamide-free regimen is similar to the effect demonstrated with the administration of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist during cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy,” they commented. It’s possible that combining the two approaches might have an additive effect, but for now the possibility remains unknown.

In addition, the SPECTRUM trial predates the widespread use of genetic testing to guide treatment, the editorialists pointed out.

“Therefore, caution should be taken in adopting wholesale such regimens,” Dr. Lambertini and Dr. Partridge said.
 

Switch to paclitaxel

The research team was inspired by previous reports that swapping out cyclophosphamide for paclitaxel did not reduce adjuvant efficacy in the general breast cancer population.

The SPECTRUM trial randomly assigned 260 women to receive a cyclophosphamide-free regimen of epirubicin (75 mg/m²) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m²) every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) for 12 weeks.

Another 261 women were randomly assigned to receive cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m²) and epirubicin (75 mg/m²) every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) for 12 weeks. These patients constituted the control group.

A year after completing chemotherapy, 63.1% of the cyclophosphamide-free arm versus 48.3% of the control group, had resumed menses, defined as having two consecutive menstrual cycles or one cycle but with premenopausal levels of estradiol and follicle-stimulating hormone (P < .001).

Another caveat of the study is that assessments of women who resumed menses were conducted at the 1-year point; rates may have been higher in the cyclophosphamide arm had the investigators conducted the assessments at 2 years, the editorialists said.

The 5-year disease-free survival was 84.7% in the cyclophosphamide-free arm versus 78.3% in the control group, an absolute difference of 14.8% (P = .07).

Patients with node-positive disease appeared to benefit the most from cyclophosphamide sparing.

There were no statistically significant differences in overall or distant disease-free survival.
 

Higher pregnancy rates

Almost 18% of women in the experimental arm reported trying to conceive, and 9.6% of them did so. About 10% of women in the cyclophosphamide arm tried to conceive, and 2.7% did so (P = .03).

The median interval between randomization and pregnancy was 42 months.

For all of the women who became pregnant, endocrine therapy was interrupted. “Women who temporarily interrupt endocrine therapy due to pregnancy should be reminded to resume endocrine therapy following attempted or successful pregnancy,” the investigators wrote.

The patients were taking tamoxifen at least 5 years after receiving chemotherapy, most often as monotherapy. About 5% of the patients underwent up-front ovarian suppression with an aromatase inhibitor, which is a current standard option.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and other organizations. The investigators and Dr. Partridge disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lambertini has consulted for and/or has received speakers fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, and other companies.

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

Results from a phase 3 trial indicate that removing cyclophosphamide from standard chemotherapy can improve fertility without compromising survival in women with breast cancer.

Researchers found that omitting cyclophosphamide from a regimen of epirubicin and paclitaxel increased the likelihood of an early return of menses, and there was a trend toward improved disease-free survival.

The phase 3 SPECTRUM trial involved 521 women with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who had undergone definitive surgery at one of eight institutions in China. The average age of the patients was 34 years.

Cyclophosphamide is a standard component of adjuvant chemotherapy, but it’s strongly associated with premature ovarian failure and infertility.

“For the first time, we demonstrate that a cyclophosphamide-free regimen [can] increase the rate of menses recovery without compromising survival,” said the researchers, led by Ke-Da Yu, MD, PhD, of the Fudan University Shanghai (China) Cancer Center.

They also reported that, among the women who tried to conceive at a later date, there was a higher pregnancy success rate among those who did not take cyclophosphamide.

“Our findings can be extrapolated to patients with other subtypes of breast cancer, such as triple-negative or HER2-enriched, because the effect of paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide on menstrual resumption is not subtype specific,” the investigators commented.

The results were published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This is the first prospective trial specifically designed to find an adjuvant breast cancer regimen less toxic to the ovaries. The “investigators ... should be applauded,” wrote Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, of the University of Genova (Italy), and Ann Partridge, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

Although promising, there are a few caveats, the editorialists wrote. In a past trial of doxorubicin and docetaxel in lieu of a cyclophosphamide regimen, disease outcomes were inferior. There is also a question as to whether the SPECTRUM results apply to non-Asian women.

The editorialists also noted that enrollment in this trial ended in 2016, before it was recommended that ovarian suppression be used in conjunction with adjuvant chemotherapy to prevent premature menopause.

“[It’s] notable that the absolute benefit in reducing [premature ovarian insufficiency] rates with the use of a cyclophosphamide-free regimen is similar to the effect demonstrated with the administration of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist during cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy,” they commented. It’s possible that combining the two approaches might have an additive effect, but for now the possibility remains unknown.

In addition, the SPECTRUM trial predates the widespread use of genetic testing to guide treatment, the editorialists pointed out.

“Therefore, caution should be taken in adopting wholesale such regimens,” Dr. Lambertini and Dr. Partridge said.
 

Switch to paclitaxel

The research team was inspired by previous reports that swapping out cyclophosphamide for paclitaxel did not reduce adjuvant efficacy in the general breast cancer population.

The SPECTRUM trial randomly assigned 260 women to receive a cyclophosphamide-free regimen of epirubicin (75 mg/m²) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m²) every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) for 12 weeks.

Another 261 women were randomly assigned to receive cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m²) and epirubicin (75 mg/m²) every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) for 12 weeks. These patients constituted the control group.

A year after completing chemotherapy, 63.1% of the cyclophosphamide-free arm versus 48.3% of the control group, had resumed menses, defined as having two consecutive menstrual cycles or one cycle but with premenopausal levels of estradiol and follicle-stimulating hormone (P < .001).

Another caveat of the study is that assessments of women who resumed menses were conducted at the 1-year point; rates may have been higher in the cyclophosphamide arm had the investigators conducted the assessments at 2 years, the editorialists said.

The 5-year disease-free survival was 84.7% in the cyclophosphamide-free arm versus 78.3% in the control group, an absolute difference of 14.8% (P = .07).

Patients with node-positive disease appeared to benefit the most from cyclophosphamide sparing.

There were no statistically significant differences in overall or distant disease-free survival.
 

Higher pregnancy rates

Almost 18% of women in the experimental arm reported trying to conceive, and 9.6% of them did so. About 10% of women in the cyclophosphamide arm tried to conceive, and 2.7% did so (P = .03).

The median interval between randomization and pregnancy was 42 months.

For all of the women who became pregnant, endocrine therapy was interrupted. “Women who temporarily interrupt endocrine therapy due to pregnancy should be reminded to resume endocrine therapy following attempted or successful pregnancy,” the investigators wrote.

The patients were taking tamoxifen at least 5 years after receiving chemotherapy, most often as monotherapy. About 5% of the patients underwent up-front ovarian suppression with an aromatase inhibitor, which is a current standard option.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and other organizations. The investigators and Dr. Partridge disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lambertini has consulted for and/or has received speakers fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, and other companies.

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

Results from a phase 3 trial indicate that removing cyclophosphamide from standard chemotherapy can improve fertility without compromising survival in women with breast cancer.

Researchers found that omitting cyclophosphamide from a regimen of epirubicin and paclitaxel increased the likelihood of an early return of menses, and there was a trend toward improved disease-free survival.

The phase 3 SPECTRUM trial involved 521 women with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who had undergone definitive surgery at one of eight institutions in China. The average age of the patients was 34 years.

Cyclophosphamide is a standard component of adjuvant chemotherapy, but it’s strongly associated with premature ovarian failure and infertility.

“For the first time, we demonstrate that a cyclophosphamide-free regimen [can] increase the rate of menses recovery without compromising survival,” said the researchers, led by Ke-Da Yu, MD, PhD, of the Fudan University Shanghai (China) Cancer Center.

They also reported that, among the women who tried to conceive at a later date, there was a higher pregnancy success rate among those who did not take cyclophosphamide.

“Our findings can be extrapolated to patients with other subtypes of breast cancer, such as triple-negative or HER2-enriched, because the effect of paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide on menstrual resumption is not subtype specific,” the investigators commented.

The results were published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This is the first prospective trial specifically designed to find an adjuvant breast cancer regimen less toxic to the ovaries. The “investigators ... should be applauded,” wrote Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, of the University of Genova (Italy), and Ann Partridge, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

Although promising, there are a few caveats, the editorialists wrote. In a past trial of doxorubicin and docetaxel in lieu of a cyclophosphamide regimen, disease outcomes were inferior. There is also a question as to whether the SPECTRUM results apply to non-Asian women.

The editorialists also noted that enrollment in this trial ended in 2016, before it was recommended that ovarian suppression be used in conjunction with adjuvant chemotherapy to prevent premature menopause.

“[It’s] notable that the absolute benefit in reducing [premature ovarian insufficiency] rates with the use of a cyclophosphamide-free regimen is similar to the effect demonstrated with the administration of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist during cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy,” they commented. It’s possible that combining the two approaches might have an additive effect, but for now the possibility remains unknown.

In addition, the SPECTRUM trial predates the widespread use of genetic testing to guide treatment, the editorialists pointed out.

“Therefore, caution should be taken in adopting wholesale such regimens,” Dr. Lambertini and Dr. Partridge said.
 

Switch to paclitaxel

The research team was inspired by previous reports that swapping out cyclophosphamide for paclitaxel did not reduce adjuvant efficacy in the general breast cancer population.

The SPECTRUM trial randomly assigned 260 women to receive a cyclophosphamide-free regimen of epirubicin (75 mg/m²) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m²) every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) for 12 weeks.

Another 261 women were randomly assigned to receive cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m²) and epirubicin (75 mg/m²) every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) for 12 weeks. These patients constituted the control group.

A year after completing chemotherapy, 63.1% of the cyclophosphamide-free arm versus 48.3% of the control group, had resumed menses, defined as having two consecutive menstrual cycles or one cycle but with premenopausal levels of estradiol and follicle-stimulating hormone (P < .001).

Another caveat of the study is that assessments of women who resumed menses were conducted at the 1-year point; rates may have been higher in the cyclophosphamide arm had the investigators conducted the assessments at 2 years, the editorialists said.

The 5-year disease-free survival was 84.7% in the cyclophosphamide-free arm versus 78.3% in the control group, an absolute difference of 14.8% (P = .07).

Patients with node-positive disease appeared to benefit the most from cyclophosphamide sparing.

There were no statistically significant differences in overall or distant disease-free survival.
 

Higher pregnancy rates

Almost 18% of women in the experimental arm reported trying to conceive, and 9.6% of them did so. About 10% of women in the cyclophosphamide arm tried to conceive, and 2.7% did so (P = .03).

The median interval between randomization and pregnancy was 42 months.

For all of the women who became pregnant, endocrine therapy was interrupted. “Women who temporarily interrupt endocrine therapy due to pregnancy should be reminded to resume endocrine therapy following attempted or successful pregnancy,” the investigators wrote.

The patients were taking tamoxifen at least 5 years after receiving chemotherapy, most often as monotherapy. About 5% of the patients underwent up-front ovarian suppression with an aromatase inhibitor, which is a current standard option.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and other organizations. The investigators and Dr. Partridge disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lambertini has consulted for and/or has received speakers fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, and other companies.

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

The Department of Health & Human Services has proposed overturning rules issued during the Trump administration that effectively prohibit clinicians at Title X–funded health clinics from discussing abortion or referring patients for abortions.

HHS proposed the overhaul of the Title X regulations on April 14. The previous administration’s 2019 rules “have undermined the public health of the population the program is meant to serve,” HHS said in the introduction to its proposal.

Medical organizations and reproductive health specialists lauded the move.

“Clinicians providing care to patients must be empowered to share the full spectrum of accurate medical information necessary to ensure that their patients are able to make timely, fully informed medical decisions,” Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in a statement. “This means transparent, respectful, evidence-based conversations about contraception and abortion care. The proposed rule will ensure that those conversations can once again happen without restrictions, interference, or threat of financial loss.”

“Providers of comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion care, base their relationships with their patients on trust,” Physicians for Reproductive Health President and CEO Jamila Perritt, MD, said in a statement. “The Title X gag rule went against everything we knew as providers of ethical, evidence-based health care by forcing providers at Title X funded clinics to withhold information that their patients needed and requested.”

HHS said that, since 2019, more than 1,000 Title X–funded service sites (25% of the total) have withdrawn from the program. Currently, Title X services – which include family planning, STI testing, cancer screening, and HIV testing and treatment – are not available in six states and are only available on a limited basis in six additional states. Planned Parenthood fully withdrew from Title X.

HHS said that tens of thousands fewer birth control implant procedures have been performed and that hundreds of thousands fewer Pap tests and a half-million or more fewer tests for chlamydia and gonorrhea have been conducted. In addition, the reduction in services may have led to up to 181,477 unintended pregnancies, HHS said.

The closure of sites and decreased availability of services have also exacerbated health inequities, according to the department.

The loss of services “has been especially felt by those already facing disproportionate barriers to accessing care, including the Black, Latinx and Indigenous communities that have also suffered the most harm during the COVID-19 pandemic,” agreed Dr. Phipps.

The new regulation proposes to “ensure access to equitable, affordable, client-centered, quality family-planning services for all clients, especially for low-income clients,” HHS said.

The proposed change in the rules “brings us one step closer to restoring access to necessary care for millions of low-income and uninsured patients who depend on Title X for family planning services,” American Medical Association President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a statement. “We are pleased that the Biden administration shares our commitment to undoing this dangerous and discriminatory ‘gag rule,’ and look forward to its elimination through any means necessary to achieve the best outcome for patients and physicians – improving the health of our nation.”

Planned Parenthood also applauded the move, and the HIV Medicine Association thanked the Biden administration for its proposal, which it called “a major step to improve #HealthEquity for all people in this country,” in a tweet.

March for Life, an antiabortion group, however, said it strongly opposed the HHS proposal. The rules “appear specifically designed to bring America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, back into the taxpayer-funded program and keep prolife organizations out,” said the group in a tweet.

“Abortion is neither health care nor family planning, and the Title X program should not be funding it,” said the group.

The Title X program does not pay for abortions, however.

The Trump administration rules prohibit abortion referrals and impose counseling standards for pregnant patients and what the Guttmacher Institute called “unnecessary and stringent requirements for the physical and financial separation of Title X–funded activities from a range of abortion-related activities.”

The new rules would reestablish regulations from 2000, with some new additions. For instance, the program will “formally integrate elements of quality family-planning services guidelines developed by [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and Office of Population Affairs,” tweeted Alina Salganicoff, director of women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “That means that higher standards for providing family planning will be required,” she tweeted. In addition, sites that offer natural family planning and abstinence “will only be able to participate if they offer referrals to other providers that offer clients access to the contraceptive of their choice.”

The proposed rules are open for public comment for 30 days. They could be made final by the fall. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that many sites could be ready to return to the program by then, especially since the recently passed coronavirus relief package, the American Rescue Plan, included a $50 million supplemental appropriation for Title X.

The 2019 rules remain in effect in the meantime, although the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in February to hear a challenge mounted by 21 states, the city of Baltimore, and organizations that included the AMA and Planned Parenthood. Those plaintiffs have requested that the case be dismissed, but it currently remains on the docket.

Not all medical providers are likely to support the new rules if they go into effect. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, and the Catholic Medical Association filed motions in the Supreme Court case to defend the Trump regulations.

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

The Department of Health & Human Services has proposed overturning rules issued during the Trump administration that effectively prohibit clinicians at Title X–funded health clinics from discussing abortion or referring patients for abortions.

HHS proposed the overhaul of the Title X regulations on April 14. The previous administration’s 2019 rules “have undermined the public health of the population the program is meant to serve,” HHS said in the introduction to its proposal.

Medical organizations and reproductive health specialists lauded the move.

“Clinicians providing care to patients must be empowered to share the full spectrum of accurate medical information necessary to ensure that their patients are able to make timely, fully informed medical decisions,” Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in a statement. “This means transparent, respectful, evidence-based conversations about contraception and abortion care. The proposed rule will ensure that those conversations can once again happen without restrictions, interference, or threat of financial loss.”

“Providers of comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion care, base their relationships with their patients on trust,” Physicians for Reproductive Health President and CEO Jamila Perritt, MD, said in a statement. “The Title X gag rule went against everything we knew as providers of ethical, evidence-based health care by forcing providers at Title X funded clinics to withhold information that their patients needed and requested.”

HHS said that, since 2019, more than 1,000 Title X–funded service sites (25% of the total) have withdrawn from the program. Currently, Title X services – which include family planning, STI testing, cancer screening, and HIV testing and treatment – are not available in six states and are only available on a limited basis in six additional states. Planned Parenthood fully withdrew from Title X.

HHS said that tens of thousands fewer birth control implant procedures have been performed and that hundreds of thousands fewer Pap tests and a half-million or more fewer tests for chlamydia and gonorrhea have been conducted. In addition, the reduction in services may have led to up to 181,477 unintended pregnancies, HHS said.

The closure of sites and decreased availability of services have also exacerbated health inequities, according to the department.

The loss of services “has been especially felt by those already facing disproportionate barriers to accessing care, including the Black, Latinx and Indigenous communities that have also suffered the most harm during the COVID-19 pandemic,” agreed Dr. Phipps.

The new regulation proposes to “ensure access to equitable, affordable, client-centered, quality family-planning services for all clients, especially for low-income clients,” HHS said.

The proposed change in the rules “brings us one step closer to restoring access to necessary care for millions of low-income and uninsured patients who depend on Title X for family planning services,” American Medical Association President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a statement. “We are pleased that the Biden administration shares our commitment to undoing this dangerous and discriminatory ‘gag rule,’ and look forward to its elimination through any means necessary to achieve the best outcome for patients and physicians – improving the health of our nation.”

Planned Parenthood also applauded the move, and the HIV Medicine Association thanked the Biden administration for its proposal, which it called “a major step to improve #HealthEquity for all people in this country,” in a tweet.

March for Life, an antiabortion group, however, said it strongly opposed the HHS proposal. The rules “appear specifically designed to bring America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, back into the taxpayer-funded program and keep prolife organizations out,” said the group in a tweet.

“Abortion is neither health care nor family planning, and the Title X program should not be funding it,” said the group.

The Title X program does not pay for abortions, however.

The Trump administration rules prohibit abortion referrals and impose counseling standards for pregnant patients and what the Guttmacher Institute called “unnecessary and stringent requirements for the physical and financial separation of Title X–funded activities from a range of abortion-related activities.”

The new rules would reestablish regulations from 2000, with some new additions. For instance, the program will “formally integrate elements of quality family-planning services guidelines developed by [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and Office of Population Affairs,” tweeted Alina Salganicoff, director of women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “That means that higher standards for providing family planning will be required,” she tweeted. In addition, sites that offer natural family planning and abstinence “will only be able to participate if they offer referrals to other providers that offer clients access to the contraceptive of their choice.”

The proposed rules are open for public comment for 30 days. They could be made final by the fall. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that many sites could be ready to return to the program by then, especially since the recently passed coronavirus relief package, the American Rescue Plan, included a $50 million supplemental appropriation for Title X.

The 2019 rules remain in effect in the meantime, although the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in February to hear a challenge mounted by 21 states, the city of Baltimore, and organizations that included the AMA and Planned Parenthood. Those plaintiffs have requested that the case be dismissed, but it currently remains on the docket.

Not all medical providers are likely to support the new rules if they go into effect. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, and the Catholic Medical Association filed motions in the Supreme Court case to defend the Trump regulations.

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

The Department of Health & Human Services has proposed overturning rules issued during the Trump administration that effectively prohibit clinicians at Title X–funded health clinics from discussing abortion or referring patients for abortions.

HHS proposed the overhaul of the Title X regulations on April 14. The previous administration’s 2019 rules “have undermined the public health of the population the program is meant to serve,” HHS said in the introduction to its proposal.

Medical organizations and reproductive health specialists lauded the move.

“Clinicians providing care to patients must be empowered to share the full spectrum of accurate medical information necessary to ensure that their patients are able to make timely, fully informed medical decisions,” Maureen G. Phipps, MD, MPH, CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in a statement. “This means transparent, respectful, evidence-based conversations about contraception and abortion care. The proposed rule will ensure that those conversations can once again happen without restrictions, interference, or threat of financial loss.”

“Providers of comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion care, base their relationships with their patients on trust,” Physicians for Reproductive Health President and CEO Jamila Perritt, MD, said in a statement. “The Title X gag rule went against everything we knew as providers of ethical, evidence-based health care by forcing providers at Title X funded clinics to withhold information that their patients needed and requested.”

HHS said that, since 2019, more than 1,000 Title X–funded service sites (25% of the total) have withdrawn from the program. Currently, Title X services – which include family planning, STI testing, cancer screening, and HIV testing and treatment – are not available in six states and are only available on a limited basis in six additional states. Planned Parenthood fully withdrew from Title X.

HHS said that tens of thousands fewer birth control implant procedures have been performed and that hundreds of thousands fewer Pap tests and a half-million or more fewer tests for chlamydia and gonorrhea have been conducted. In addition, the reduction in services may have led to up to 181,477 unintended pregnancies, HHS said.

The closure of sites and decreased availability of services have also exacerbated health inequities, according to the department.

The loss of services “has been especially felt by those already facing disproportionate barriers to accessing care, including the Black, Latinx and Indigenous communities that have also suffered the most harm during the COVID-19 pandemic,” agreed Dr. Phipps.

The new regulation proposes to “ensure access to equitable, affordable, client-centered, quality family-planning services for all clients, especially for low-income clients,” HHS said.

The proposed change in the rules “brings us one step closer to restoring access to necessary care for millions of low-income and uninsured patients who depend on Title X for family planning services,” American Medical Association President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a statement. “We are pleased that the Biden administration shares our commitment to undoing this dangerous and discriminatory ‘gag rule,’ and look forward to its elimination through any means necessary to achieve the best outcome for patients and physicians – improving the health of our nation.”

Planned Parenthood also applauded the move, and the HIV Medicine Association thanked the Biden administration for its proposal, which it called “a major step to improve #HealthEquity for all people in this country,” in a tweet.

March for Life, an antiabortion group, however, said it strongly opposed the HHS proposal. The rules “appear specifically designed to bring America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, back into the taxpayer-funded program and keep prolife organizations out,” said the group in a tweet.

“Abortion is neither health care nor family planning, and the Title X program should not be funding it,” said the group.

The Title X program does not pay for abortions, however.

The Trump administration rules prohibit abortion referrals and impose counseling standards for pregnant patients and what the Guttmacher Institute called “unnecessary and stringent requirements for the physical and financial separation of Title X–funded activities from a range of abortion-related activities.”

The new rules would reestablish regulations from 2000, with some new additions. For instance, the program will “formally integrate elements of quality family-planning services guidelines developed by [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and Office of Population Affairs,” tweeted Alina Salganicoff, director of women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “That means that higher standards for providing family planning will be required,” she tweeted. In addition, sites that offer natural family planning and abstinence “will only be able to participate if they offer referrals to other providers that offer clients access to the contraceptive of their choice.”

The proposed rules are open for public comment for 30 days. They could be made final by the fall. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that many sites could be ready to return to the program by then, especially since the recently passed coronavirus relief package, the American Rescue Plan, included a $50 million supplemental appropriation for Title X.

The 2019 rules remain in effect in the meantime, although the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in February to hear a challenge mounted by 21 states, the city of Baltimore, and organizations that included the AMA and Planned Parenthood. Those plaintiffs have requested that the case be dismissed, but it currently remains on the docket.

Not all medical providers are likely to support the new rules if they go into effect. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, and the Catholic Medical Association filed motions in the Supreme Court case to defend the Trump regulations.

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

The federal government has approved a request by Illinois to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage to a full year from the current standard of 60 days.

Health & Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra announced the approval at a press briefing on April 12, noting that it was occurring during Black Maternal Health Week. The coverage extension is aimed at decreasing maternal morbidity and mortality, particularly among women of color.

Black women are two times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than White women, according to HHS. Mr. Becerra noted that, in the United States, 52% of pregnancy-related deaths take place up to 1 year post partum, and that in Illinois the figure is 80%.

“The continuity of coverage available through this action will help new mothers manage chronic conditions like hypertension and diabetes, and it will provide access to behavioral health and other mental health care services,” he said.

Continuing Medicaid coverage for new mothers has been backed by the American Medical Association, is a priority of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and has been promoted by Republicans and Democrats in Congress and state legislatures.

Illinois is the first state to seek and win approval to extend its Medicaid coverage from the current 60-days postbirth requirement. The program was granted through an existing section 1115 waiver program. It begins today and is authorized through Dec. 31, 2025. The state estimates that some 2,500 women with incomes up to 208% of the federal poverty level will receive the year of continuous Medicaid coverage. Illinois will evaluate whether the extension improves women’s health and if it benefits the Medicaid program overall.

However, the recently passed coronavirus rescue package creates a new process that lets states more easily expand postpartum coverage, but they must act by April 2022. Mr. Becerra said the federal government is encouraging more states to follow Illinois’ lead in extending postpartum eligibility by taking advantage of the new process.

States won’t get extra money – they will receive the regular per capita–based federal match if they extend Medicaid coverage through this pathway. Even so, Mr. Becerra said there has been much interest.

“I hope that we begin to see states not only express interest but actually submit their proposals on how they would do this,” Mr. Becerra said.

Medicaid has become one of the key providers of maternal health care in the United States, as it covers 4 in 10 births, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. But postpartum coverage after the 60-day federal requirement is a patchwork. In 38 states (plus Washington, D.C.) that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, mothers who earn up to 138% of the federal poverty level can continue on Medicaid; for those who earn more than that, they can get coverage through the ACA.

In the 12 states that did not expand Medicaid, new mothers have to seek Medicaid coverage after 60 days as parents, and the income limits are strict. In Texas, for example, a married mother with a newborn loses Medicaid coverage 2 months after giving birth if she and her partner have an annual income above $3,733, reports the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Coverage disruptions are harmful to mothers, said Mr. Becerra. HHS data shows that more than half of pregnant women in Medicaid experienced a coverage gap in the first 6 months postpartum and that disruptions in coverage often lead to delayed care and less preventive care.

Mr. Becerra also announced that the Health Resources and Services Administration will make $12 million available over 4 years for the Rural Maternity and Obstetrics Management Strategies program. Applicants for the new funds will be required to focus on populations that have historically suffered from poorer health outcomes, health disparities, and other inequities.

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

The federal government has approved a request by Illinois to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage to a full year from the current standard of 60 days.

Health & Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra announced the approval at a press briefing on April 12, noting that it was occurring during Black Maternal Health Week. The coverage extension is aimed at decreasing maternal morbidity and mortality, particularly among women of color.

Black women are two times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than White women, according to HHS. Mr. Becerra noted that, in the United States, 52% of pregnancy-related deaths take place up to 1 year post partum, and that in Illinois the figure is 80%.

“The continuity of coverage available through this action will help new mothers manage chronic conditions like hypertension and diabetes, and it will provide access to behavioral health and other mental health care services,” he said.

Continuing Medicaid coverage for new mothers has been backed by the American Medical Association, is a priority of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and has been promoted by Republicans and Democrats in Congress and state legislatures.

Illinois is the first state to seek and win approval to extend its Medicaid coverage from the current 60-days postbirth requirement. The program was granted through an existing section 1115 waiver program. It begins today and is authorized through Dec. 31, 2025. The state estimates that some 2,500 women with incomes up to 208% of the federal poverty level will receive the year of continuous Medicaid coverage. Illinois will evaluate whether the extension improves women’s health and if it benefits the Medicaid program overall.

However, the recently passed coronavirus rescue package creates a new process that lets states more easily expand postpartum coverage, but they must act by April 2022. Mr. Becerra said the federal government is encouraging more states to follow Illinois’ lead in extending postpartum eligibility by taking advantage of the new process.

States won’t get extra money – they will receive the regular per capita–based federal match if they extend Medicaid coverage through this pathway. Even so, Mr. Becerra said there has been much interest.

“I hope that we begin to see states not only express interest but actually submit their proposals on how they would do this,” Mr. Becerra said.

Medicaid has become one of the key providers of maternal health care in the United States, as it covers 4 in 10 births, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. But postpartum coverage after the 60-day federal requirement is a patchwork. In 38 states (plus Washington, D.C.) that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, mothers who earn up to 138% of the federal poverty level can continue on Medicaid; for those who earn more than that, they can get coverage through the ACA.

In the 12 states that did not expand Medicaid, new mothers have to seek Medicaid coverage after 60 days as parents, and the income limits are strict. In Texas, for example, a married mother with a newborn loses Medicaid coverage 2 months after giving birth if she and her partner have an annual income above $3,733, reports the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Coverage disruptions are harmful to mothers, said Mr. Becerra. HHS data shows that more than half of pregnant women in Medicaid experienced a coverage gap in the first 6 months postpartum and that disruptions in coverage often lead to delayed care and less preventive care.

Mr. Becerra also announced that the Health Resources and Services Administration will make $12 million available over 4 years for the Rural Maternity and Obstetrics Management Strategies program. Applicants for the new funds will be required to focus on populations that have historically suffered from poorer health outcomes, health disparities, and other inequities.

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

The federal government has approved a request by Illinois to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage to a full year from the current standard of 60 days.

Health & Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra announced the approval at a press briefing on April 12, noting that it was occurring during Black Maternal Health Week. The coverage extension is aimed at decreasing maternal morbidity and mortality, particularly among women of color.

Black women are two times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than White women, according to HHS. Mr. Becerra noted that, in the United States, 52% of pregnancy-related deaths take place up to 1 year post partum, and that in Illinois the figure is 80%.

“The continuity of coverage available through this action will help new mothers manage chronic conditions like hypertension and diabetes, and it will provide access to behavioral health and other mental health care services,” he said.

Continuing Medicaid coverage for new mothers has been backed by the American Medical Association, is a priority of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and has been promoted by Republicans and Democrats in Congress and state legislatures.

Illinois is the first state to seek and win approval to extend its Medicaid coverage from the current 60-days postbirth requirement. The program was granted through an existing section 1115 waiver program. It begins today and is authorized through Dec. 31, 2025. The state estimates that some 2,500 women with incomes up to 208% of the federal poverty level will receive the year of continuous Medicaid coverage. Illinois will evaluate whether the extension improves women’s health and if it benefits the Medicaid program overall.

However, the recently passed coronavirus rescue package creates a new process that lets states more easily expand postpartum coverage, but they must act by April 2022. Mr. Becerra said the federal government is encouraging more states to follow Illinois’ lead in extending postpartum eligibility by taking advantage of the new process.

States won’t get extra money – they will receive the regular per capita–based federal match if they extend Medicaid coverage through this pathway. Even so, Mr. Becerra said there has been much interest.

“I hope that we begin to see states not only express interest but actually submit their proposals on how they would do this,” Mr. Becerra said.

Medicaid has become one of the key providers of maternal health care in the United States, as it covers 4 in 10 births, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. But postpartum coverage after the 60-day federal requirement is a patchwork. In 38 states (plus Washington, D.C.) that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, mothers who earn up to 138% of the federal poverty level can continue on Medicaid; for those who earn more than that, they can get coverage through the ACA.

In the 12 states that did not expand Medicaid, new mothers have to seek Medicaid coverage after 60 days as parents, and the income limits are strict. In Texas, for example, a married mother with a newborn loses Medicaid coverage 2 months after giving birth if she and her partner have an annual income above $3,733, reports the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Coverage disruptions are harmful to mothers, said Mr. Becerra. HHS data shows that more than half of pregnant women in Medicaid experienced a coverage gap in the first 6 months postpartum and that disruptions in coverage often lead to delayed care and less preventive care.

Mr. Becerra also announced that the Health Resources and Services Administration will make $12 million available over 4 years for the Rural Maternity and Obstetrics Management Strategies program. Applicants for the new funds will be required to focus on populations that have historically suffered from poorer health outcomes, health disparities, and other inequities.

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