Women's Health

“More is not necessarily better” when it comes to vitamin D supplements for women with adequate serum levels, new research suggests.

In a study of healthy 55- to 70-year-old women who took very-high-dose vitamin D supplements – either 4,000 IU/day or the previously identified “upper safe limit” of 10,000 IU/day – for 3 years had a significantly greater loss of total bone mineral density (BMD) at the radius and tibia than did women who took 400 IU/day. However, this effect was not seen in men. And the higher-dose vitamin D supplements did not improve bone strength in men or women.

But this was an exploratory post hoc analysis, and these were healthy community-dwelling adults with sufficient serum vitamin D levels (and no osteoporosis) at study entry, stressed lead researcher Lauren A. Burt, PhD, from the University of Calgary, in Alberta, Canada.

Dr. Burt presented these findings Sept. 11 at the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting, and the study was also recently published online in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The results suggest that, “if you have normal bone density and adequate levels of vitamin D, there is no bone benefit in taking doses of vitamin D above the standard recommendations designed to prevent vitamin D deficiency, and doses at or above 4,000 IU/day might even be detrimental to bone, especially in females,” Dr. Burt said in an interview.

“These results are clinically relevant,” Dr. Burt and her coauthors wrote, “as vitamin D supplementation is widely administered to postmenopausal females for osteoporosis prevention.”

“Our findings do not support a benefit of high-dose vitamin D supplementation for bone health and raise the possibility of harm for females.”

Invited to comment, Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that this finding “warrants further research” because it is “important” to discover sex differences in bone responses to vitamin D.
 

“This doesn’t apply to osteoporosis”

Dr. LeBoff was lead author of a subanalysis of the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL).

As she reported at last year’s ASBMR meeting, that analysis showed that, in healthy adults who did not have vitamin D insufficiency, taking vitamin D3 supplements for 2 years did not improve BMD, compared with placebo (recently published), nor was this linked with fewer fractures. 

Dr. LeBoff pointed out that the current study investigated “very high doses of vitamin D” – at least double the 2,000 IU/day doses examined in VITAL.

Also, the serum vitamin D levels in this study were “above what we considered the upper normal limit for our assay in our hospital,” she noted, and there was no placebo control.

“We did not see any adverse effects of 2,000 IU/day vitamin D,” Dr. LeBoff stressed.

“At the same time, we didn’t see any significant benefits in terms of bone density because they already had achieved a normal level of vitamin D sufficient for bone.”

But “this doesn’t apply to patients with vitamin D deficiency, patients with osteoporosis, or low bone mass, in which case we would recommend vitamin D.”

Some patients take more vitamin D than they need because they think more is better, said LeBoff, but this study suggests “more is not necessarily better.”

“There’s been a concern for several years that too much vitamin D may be associated with increased fractures,” she emphasized.
 

Post hoc analysis

The current study analyzed new data from the Calgary Vitamin D study.

That study found no benefit in BMD or bone strength (JAMA. 2019;322[8]:736-45), contrary to the researchers’ hypothesis that high-dose vitamin D supplements would be associated with greater calcium absorption and parathyroid hormone suppression and, thus, reduced age-related bone loss (improved bone density and strength).

Instead, they found a negative dose-response relationship, which “should be regarded as hypothesis generating, requiring confirmation with further research,” they wrote.

The current study sought to determine if there were sex differences in the effect of vitamin D supplements on bone health in this population.  

From October 2013 to December 2017, the Canada Vitamin D study enrolled 311 participants (53% male). To be eligible for the study, participants had to have serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels greater than 30 nmol/L and less than 125 nmol/L. They also needed to have adequate calcium intake (1,200 mg/day, as defined by the U.S. Institute of Medicine), or if not, they were instructed to take an appropriate calcium supplement dose.

Patients were randomized to receive 400, 4,000, or 10,000 IU/day of vitamin D3 cholecalciferol, given as 5 drops/day of liquid (Ddrops), with roughly 50 men and 50 women in each dose group.

Researchers selected the 400 IU/day dose as the comparator because the Institute of Medicine recommends a vitamin D intake of 600 IU/day for adults under age 70 years to provide the vitamin D needed for bone health. The typical Canadian diet includes 200-300 IU/day of vitamin D, so individuals would need a supplement of 400 IU/day to reach the recommended intake. The 4,000 IU/day dose is the recommended tolerable upper intake level, according to the Institute of Medicine. And the 10,000 IU/day dose is the tolerable upper intake level of vitamin D as identified in a review by Hathcock and colleagues (Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85:6-18).

Participants underwent scans with high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) to measure total volumetric BMD at the radius and tibia at baseline, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Finite element analysis was used to estimate bone strength.

After 3 years, women had lost significantly more BMD at the radius after taking high-dose versus 400 IU/day of vitamin D. Losses in BMD at the tibia followed a similar trend but were smaller (Figure 1). There were no significant changes in this measure among men (Figure 2). 

There were also no significant changes in bone strength among men or women.

Biological mechanism remains to be determined

Dr. LeBoff said a “possible biological explanation” for the findings is that “women, particularly when they are younger, lose more bone than men.”

“Postmenopausal females do lose bone at an accelerated rate compared with males,” Dr. Burt agreed, “but at the time the study was designed, there was no reason to believe that high-dose vitamin D supplementation would accelerate the problem.”

“The biological mechanism of the vitamin D–related bone loss needs further investigation,” Dr. Burt added, “but there are laboratory data suggesting that supraphysiologic doses of active metabolites of vitamin D may stimulate bone resorption.”

The study was funded by the Pure North S’Energy Foundation. Dr. Burt has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. LeBoff has reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health for the VITAL analysis.
 

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

“More is not necessarily better” when it comes to vitamin D supplements for women with adequate serum levels, new research suggests.

In a study of healthy 55- to 70-year-old women who took very-high-dose vitamin D supplements – either 4,000 IU/day or the previously identified “upper safe limit” of 10,000 IU/day – for 3 years had a significantly greater loss of total bone mineral density (BMD) at the radius and tibia than did women who took 400 IU/day. However, this effect was not seen in men. And the higher-dose vitamin D supplements did not improve bone strength in men or women.

But this was an exploratory post hoc analysis, and these were healthy community-dwelling adults with sufficient serum vitamin D levels (and no osteoporosis) at study entry, stressed lead researcher Lauren A. Burt, PhD, from the University of Calgary, in Alberta, Canada.

Dr. Burt presented these findings Sept. 11 at the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting, and the study was also recently published online in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The results suggest that, “if you have normal bone density and adequate levels of vitamin D, there is no bone benefit in taking doses of vitamin D above the standard recommendations designed to prevent vitamin D deficiency, and doses at or above 4,000 IU/day might even be detrimental to bone, especially in females,” Dr. Burt said in an interview.

“These results are clinically relevant,” Dr. Burt and her coauthors wrote, “as vitamin D supplementation is widely administered to postmenopausal females for osteoporosis prevention.”

“Our findings do not support a benefit of high-dose vitamin D supplementation for bone health and raise the possibility of harm for females.”

Invited to comment, Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that this finding “warrants further research” because it is “important” to discover sex differences in bone responses to vitamin D.
 

“This doesn’t apply to osteoporosis”

Dr. LeBoff was lead author of a subanalysis of the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL).

As she reported at last year’s ASBMR meeting, that analysis showed that, in healthy adults who did not have vitamin D insufficiency, taking vitamin D3 supplements for 2 years did not improve BMD, compared with placebo (recently published), nor was this linked with fewer fractures. 

Dr. LeBoff pointed out that the current study investigated “very high doses of vitamin D” – at least double the 2,000 IU/day doses examined in VITAL.

Also, the serum vitamin D levels in this study were “above what we considered the upper normal limit for our assay in our hospital,” she noted, and there was no placebo control.

“We did not see any adverse effects of 2,000 IU/day vitamin D,” Dr. LeBoff stressed.

“At the same time, we didn’t see any significant benefits in terms of bone density because they already had achieved a normal level of vitamin D sufficient for bone.”

But “this doesn’t apply to patients with vitamin D deficiency, patients with osteoporosis, or low bone mass, in which case we would recommend vitamin D.”

Some patients take more vitamin D than they need because they think more is better, said LeBoff, but this study suggests “more is not necessarily better.”

“There’s been a concern for several years that too much vitamin D may be associated with increased fractures,” she emphasized.
 

Post hoc analysis

The current study analyzed new data from the Calgary Vitamin D study.

That study found no benefit in BMD or bone strength (JAMA. 2019;322[8]:736-45), contrary to the researchers’ hypothesis that high-dose vitamin D supplements would be associated with greater calcium absorption and parathyroid hormone suppression and, thus, reduced age-related bone loss (improved bone density and strength).

Instead, they found a negative dose-response relationship, which “should be regarded as hypothesis generating, requiring confirmation with further research,” they wrote.

The current study sought to determine if there were sex differences in the effect of vitamin D supplements on bone health in this population.  

From October 2013 to December 2017, the Canada Vitamin D study enrolled 311 participants (53% male). To be eligible for the study, participants had to have serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels greater than 30 nmol/L and less than 125 nmol/L. They also needed to have adequate calcium intake (1,200 mg/day, as defined by the U.S. Institute of Medicine), or if not, they were instructed to take an appropriate calcium supplement dose.

Patients were randomized to receive 400, 4,000, or 10,000 IU/day of vitamin D3 cholecalciferol, given as 5 drops/day of liquid (Ddrops), with roughly 50 men and 50 women in each dose group.

Researchers selected the 400 IU/day dose as the comparator because the Institute of Medicine recommends a vitamin D intake of 600 IU/day for adults under age 70 years to provide the vitamin D needed for bone health. The typical Canadian diet includes 200-300 IU/day of vitamin D, so individuals would need a supplement of 400 IU/day to reach the recommended intake. The 4,000 IU/day dose is the recommended tolerable upper intake level, according to the Institute of Medicine. And the 10,000 IU/day dose is the tolerable upper intake level of vitamin D as identified in a review by Hathcock and colleagues (Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85:6-18).

Participants underwent scans with high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) to measure total volumetric BMD at the radius and tibia at baseline, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Finite element analysis was used to estimate bone strength.

After 3 years, women had lost significantly more BMD at the radius after taking high-dose versus 400 IU/day of vitamin D. Losses in BMD at the tibia followed a similar trend but were smaller (Figure 1). There were no significant changes in this measure among men (Figure 2). 

There were also no significant changes in bone strength among men or women.

Biological mechanism remains to be determined

Dr. LeBoff said a “possible biological explanation” for the findings is that “women, particularly when they are younger, lose more bone than men.”

“Postmenopausal females do lose bone at an accelerated rate compared with males,” Dr. Burt agreed, “but at the time the study was designed, there was no reason to believe that high-dose vitamin D supplementation would accelerate the problem.”

“The biological mechanism of the vitamin D–related bone loss needs further investigation,” Dr. Burt added, “but there are laboratory data suggesting that supraphysiologic doses of active metabolites of vitamin D may stimulate bone resorption.”

The study was funded by the Pure North S’Energy Foundation. Dr. Burt has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. LeBoff has reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health for the VITAL analysis.
 

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

“More is not necessarily better” when it comes to vitamin D supplements for women with adequate serum levels, new research suggests.

In a study of healthy 55- to 70-year-old women who took very-high-dose vitamin D supplements – either 4,000 IU/day or the previously identified “upper safe limit” of 10,000 IU/day – for 3 years had a significantly greater loss of total bone mineral density (BMD) at the radius and tibia than did women who took 400 IU/day. However, this effect was not seen in men. And the higher-dose vitamin D supplements did not improve bone strength in men or women.

But this was an exploratory post hoc analysis, and these were healthy community-dwelling adults with sufficient serum vitamin D levels (and no osteoporosis) at study entry, stressed lead researcher Lauren A. Burt, PhD, from the University of Calgary, in Alberta, Canada.

Dr. Burt presented these findings Sept. 11 at the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting, and the study was also recently published online in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The results suggest that, “if you have normal bone density and adequate levels of vitamin D, there is no bone benefit in taking doses of vitamin D above the standard recommendations designed to prevent vitamin D deficiency, and doses at or above 4,000 IU/day might even be detrimental to bone, especially in females,” Dr. Burt said in an interview.

“These results are clinically relevant,” Dr. Burt and her coauthors wrote, “as vitamin D supplementation is widely administered to postmenopausal females for osteoporosis prevention.”

“Our findings do not support a benefit of high-dose vitamin D supplementation for bone health and raise the possibility of harm for females.”

Invited to comment, Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview that this finding “warrants further research” because it is “important” to discover sex differences in bone responses to vitamin D.
 

“This doesn’t apply to osteoporosis”

Dr. LeBoff was lead author of a subanalysis of the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL).

As she reported at last year’s ASBMR meeting, that analysis showed that, in healthy adults who did not have vitamin D insufficiency, taking vitamin D3 supplements for 2 years did not improve BMD, compared with placebo (recently published), nor was this linked with fewer fractures. 

Dr. LeBoff pointed out that the current study investigated “very high doses of vitamin D” – at least double the 2,000 IU/day doses examined in VITAL.

Also, the serum vitamin D levels in this study were “above what we considered the upper normal limit for our assay in our hospital,” she noted, and there was no placebo control.

“We did not see any adverse effects of 2,000 IU/day vitamin D,” Dr. LeBoff stressed.

“At the same time, we didn’t see any significant benefits in terms of bone density because they already had achieved a normal level of vitamin D sufficient for bone.”

But “this doesn’t apply to patients with vitamin D deficiency, patients with osteoporosis, or low bone mass, in which case we would recommend vitamin D.”

Some patients take more vitamin D than they need because they think more is better, said LeBoff, but this study suggests “more is not necessarily better.”

“There’s been a concern for several years that too much vitamin D may be associated with increased fractures,” she emphasized.
 

Post hoc analysis

The current study analyzed new data from the Calgary Vitamin D study.

That study found no benefit in BMD or bone strength (JAMA. 2019;322[8]:736-45), contrary to the researchers’ hypothesis that high-dose vitamin D supplements would be associated with greater calcium absorption and parathyroid hormone suppression and, thus, reduced age-related bone loss (improved bone density and strength).

Instead, they found a negative dose-response relationship, which “should be regarded as hypothesis generating, requiring confirmation with further research,” they wrote.

The current study sought to determine if there were sex differences in the effect of vitamin D supplements on bone health in this population.  

From October 2013 to December 2017, the Canada Vitamin D study enrolled 311 participants (53% male). To be eligible for the study, participants had to have serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels greater than 30 nmol/L and less than 125 nmol/L. They also needed to have adequate calcium intake (1,200 mg/day, as defined by the U.S. Institute of Medicine), or if not, they were instructed to take an appropriate calcium supplement dose.

Patients were randomized to receive 400, 4,000, or 10,000 IU/day of vitamin D3 cholecalciferol, given as 5 drops/day of liquid (Ddrops), with roughly 50 men and 50 women in each dose group.

Researchers selected the 400 IU/day dose as the comparator because the Institute of Medicine recommends a vitamin D intake of 600 IU/day for adults under age 70 years to provide the vitamin D needed for bone health. The typical Canadian diet includes 200-300 IU/day of vitamin D, so individuals would need a supplement of 400 IU/day to reach the recommended intake. The 4,000 IU/day dose is the recommended tolerable upper intake level, according to the Institute of Medicine. And the 10,000 IU/day dose is the tolerable upper intake level of vitamin D as identified in a review by Hathcock and colleagues (Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85:6-18).

Participants underwent scans with high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) to measure total volumetric BMD at the radius and tibia at baseline, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Finite element analysis was used to estimate bone strength.

After 3 years, women had lost significantly more BMD at the radius after taking high-dose versus 400 IU/day of vitamin D. Losses in BMD at the tibia followed a similar trend but were smaller (Figure 1). There were no significant changes in this measure among men (Figure 2). 

There were also no significant changes in bone strength among men or women.

Biological mechanism remains to be determined

Dr. LeBoff said a “possible biological explanation” for the findings is that “women, particularly when they are younger, lose more bone than men.”

“Postmenopausal females do lose bone at an accelerated rate compared with males,” Dr. Burt agreed, “but at the time the study was designed, there was no reason to believe that high-dose vitamin D supplementation would accelerate the problem.”

“The biological mechanism of the vitamin D–related bone loss needs further investigation,” Dr. Burt added, “but there are laboratory data suggesting that supraphysiologic doses of active metabolites of vitamin D may stimulate bone resorption.”

The study was funded by the Pure North S’Energy Foundation. Dr. Burt has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. LeBoff has reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health for the VITAL analysis.
 

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

In rural counties, the absence of active labor and delivery (L&D) units is associated with a significant increase in perinatal mortality, according to a retrospective study using county-level data from the Alabama Department of Public Health.

stockce/Thinkstock

Although association does not establish causation, these data raise concern “for the current trend of diminishing L&D units that is occurring in many rural settings,” according to the authors of the study, led by John B. Waits, MD, of Cahaba Medical Care, Centreville, Ala., in Annals of Family Medicine.

When mortality per 1,000 live births was compared over a 15-year period (2003-2017) between 15 counties with and 21 counties without local L&D units, those with the units had lower overall infant mortality (9.23 vs. 7.89; P = .0011), perinatal mortality (8.89 vs. 10.82; P < .001), and neonatal mortality (4.74 vs. 5.67; P = .0034). The percentages of low-birth-weight babies born between 2003 and 2014 were 9.86% versus 10.61% (P < .001) for counties with and without L&D units, respectively.

The relative increased risks (RR) for these adverse outcomes in counties without L&D units were statistically significant and substantial, ranging from about 8% for a pregnancy resulting in a low-birth-weight infant to slightly more than 21% for perinatal mortality.

Over the study period, there were 165,525 live births in the 15 counties with L&D units and 72,177 births in the 21 counties with no such units. In counties without L&D units, the average proportion of White people was higher (73.47% vs. 60.86%), and that of African Americans was lower (22.76% vs. 36.23%). Median income ($40,759 vs. $35,604) and per capita income ($22,474 vs. $20,641) was slightly higher.

Of the 67 counties in Alabama, this study did not include those considered urbanized by the Alabama Office of Management and Budget even if classified rural by other statewide offices, such as the Alabama Rural Health Association. Any county with at least one L&D unit was considered to have a local unit. Three counties with L&D units that closed before the observation period was completed were excluded from the analysis.

The Alabama data appear to identify a major problem in need of an urgent solution, according to John S. Cullen, MD, a family physician in Valdez, Alaska, and chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians Board of Directors.

“Almost 20% of U.S. women of reproductive age live in rural communities,” he said in an interview. The data from this study provides compelling evidence “that the loss of rural maternity care in this country has contributed to the increase in newborn mortality in rural communities.”

There are many limitations for this study, according to the authors. They acknowledged that they could not control for many potentially important variables, such as travel time to hospitals for those in counties with L&D units when compared with those without. They also acknowledged the lack of data regarding availability of prenatal care in places with or without L&D units.

If lack of L&D services in rural areas is a source of adverse outcomes, data suggesting that the ongoing decline in L&D units are worrisome, according to the authors. Of studies they cited, one showed nearly a 10% loss in rural L&D services in a recent 10-year period.

The authors also noted that about half of the 3,143 counties in the United States do not have a practicing obstetrician, and that fewer than 7% of obstetricians-gynecologists practice in rural settings.

In many rural counties, including the county where the lead author practices, family practitioners provide 100% of local obstetric care, but access to these clinicians also appears to be declining, according to the paper. The ratio of primary care physicians to patients is already lower in non-metropolitan than metropolitan areas (39.8 vs. 53.3). The American Board of Family Medicine has reported that fewer than 10% of family physicians now provide maternity care, the authors wrote.

“If a causal relationship does exist [between lack of L&D units and adverse perinatal outcomes], then rural populations would definitively benefit from having local access to a L&D unit,” the authors stated.

The lead author, Dr. Waits, said in an interview that there are two obstacles to an increase in rural L&D units: malpractice premiums and reimbursement for indigent deliveries. The large malpractice premiums required to cover OB care are hurdles for caregivers, such as family physicians, as well as the hospitals where they practice.

Reforms from the legislative or regulatory perspective are needed to permit malpractice insurance to be issued at a reasonable cost, according to Dr. Waits. Such reforms are a “moral imperative” so that the malpractice issue is not allowed to “shipwreck infant and maternal mortality,” he said.

Of the many potential solutions, such as increased use of telemedicine, legislative initiatives to reduce the malpractice burden, or new support and incentives for family physicians to deliver OB care, each is burdened with obstacles to overcome, according to Dr. Waits. This does not mean these solutions should not be pursued alone or together, but he made it clear that the no solution is easy. In the meantime, Dr. Waits indicated a need to consider practical and immediate strategies to fix the problem.

“There should be incentives for rural emergency departments and ambulance systems to train in the [American Academy of Family Physicians’] Basic Life Support in Obstetrics (BLSO) certification courses each year. I am not aware of any specific evidence around this, but it is a known fact that, when L&Ds close, institutional memory of OB emergencies recede, and preparedness suffers,” he said.

Dr. Cullen agreed that if the closing of L&D units explains the higher rate of perinatal mortality in rural areas, both short-term and long-term solutions are needed.

“Every community must have a plan for obstetric and newborn emergencies. The decision to not offer maternity care means that rural providers will still provide maternity care but not be ready for emergencies,” he said, echoing a point made by Dr. Waits.

The study authors disclosed no conflicts. Dr. Cullen reported having no disclosures. 

SOURCE: Waits JB et al. Ann Fam Med. 2020;18:446-51.

In rural counties, the absence of active labor and delivery (L&D) units is associated with a significant increase in perinatal mortality, according to a retrospective study using county-level data from the Alabama Department of Public Health.

stockce/Thinkstock

Although association does not establish causation, these data raise concern “for the current trend of diminishing L&D units that is occurring in many rural settings,” according to the authors of the study, led by John B. Waits, MD, of Cahaba Medical Care, Centreville, Ala., in Annals of Family Medicine.

When mortality per 1,000 live births was compared over a 15-year period (2003-2017) between 15 counties with and 21 counties without local L&D units, those with the units had lower overall infant mortality (9.23 vs. 7.89; P = .0011), perinatal mortality (8.89 vs. 10.82; P < .001), and neonatal mortality (4.74 vs. 5.67; P = .0034). The percentages of low-birth-weight babies born between 2003 and 2014 were 9.86% versus 10.61% (P < .001) for counties with and without L&D units, respectively.

The relative increased risks (RR) for these adverse outcomes in counties without L&D units were statistically significant and substantial, ranging from about 8% for a pregnancy resulting in a low-birth-weight infant to slightly more than 21% for perinatal mortality.

Over the study period, there were 165,525 live births in the 15 counties with L&D units and 72,177 births in the 21 counties with no such units. In counties without L&D units, the average proportion of White people was higher (73.47% vs. 60.86%), and that of African Americans was lower (22.76% vs. 36.23%). Median income ($40,759 vs. $35,604) and per capita income ($22,474 vs. $20,641) was slightly higher.

Of the 67 counties in Alabama, this study did not include those considered urbanized by the Alabama Office of Management and Budget even if classified rural by other statewide offices, such as the Alabama Rural Health Association. Any county with at least one L&D unit was considered to have a local unit. Three counties with L&D units that closed before the observation period was completed were excluded from the analysis.

The Alabama data appear to identify a major problem in need of an urgent solution, according to John S. Cullen, MD, a family physician in Valdez, Alaska, and chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians Board of Directors.

“Almost 20% of U.S. women of reproductive age live in rural communities,” he said in an interview. The data from this study provides compelling evidence “that the loss of rural maternity care in this country has contributed to the increase in newborn mortality in rural communities.”

There are many limitations for this study, according to the authors. They acknowledged that they could not control for many potentially important variables, such as travel time to hospitals for those in counties with L&D units when compared with those without. They also acknowledged the lack of data regarding availability of prenatal care in places with or without L&D units.

If lack of L&D services in rural areas is a source of adverse outcomes, data suggesting that the ongoing decline in L&D units are worrisome, according to the authors. Of studies they cited, one showed nearly a 10% loss in rural L&D services in a recent 10-year period.

The authors also noted that about half of the 3,143 counties in the United States do not have a practicing obstetrician, and that fewer than 7% of obstetricians-gynecologists practice in rural settings.

In many rural counties, including the county where the lead author practices, family practitioners provide 100% of local obstetric care, but access to these clinicians also appears to be declining, according to the paper. The ratio of primary care physicians to patients is already lower in non-metropolitan than metropolitan areas (39.8 vs. 53.3). The American Board of Family Medicine has reported that fewer than 10% of family physicians now provide maternity care, the authors wrote.

“If a causal relationship does exist [between lack of L&D units and adverse perinatal outcomes], then rural populations would definitively benefit from having local access to a L&D unit,” the authors stated.

The lead author, Dr. Waits, said in an interview that there are two obstacles to an increase in rural L&D units: malpractice premiums and reimbursement for indigent deliveries. The large malpractice premiums required to cover OB care are hurdles for caregivers, such as family physicians, as well as the hospitals where they practice.

Reforms from the legislative or regulatory perspective are needed to permit malpractice insurance to be issued at a reasonable cost, according to Dr. Waits. Such reforms are a “moral imperative” so that the malpractice issue is not allowed to “shipwreck infant and maternal mortality,” he said.

Of the many potential solutions, such as increased use of telemedicine, legislative initiatives to reduce the malpractice burden, or new support and incentives for family physicians to deliver OB care, each is burdened with obstacles to overcome, according to Dr. Waits. This does not mean these solutions should not be pursued alone or together, but he made it clear that the no solution is easy. In the meantime, Dr. Waits indicated a need to consider practical and immediate strategies to fix the problem.

“There should be incentives for rural emergency departments and ambulance systems to train in the [American Academy of Family Physicians’] Basic Life Support in Obstetrics (BLSO) certification courses each year. I am not aware of any specific evidence around this, but it is a known fact that, when L&Ds close, institutional memory of OB emergencies recede, and preparedness suffers,” he said.

Dr. Cullen agreed that if the closing of L&D units explains the higher rate of perinatal mortality in rural areas, both short-term and long-term solutions are needed.

“Every community must have a plan for obstetric and newborn emergencies. The decision to not offer maternity care means that rural providers will still provide maternity care but not be ready for emergencies,” he said, echoing a point made by Dr. Waits.

The study authors disclosed no conflicts. Dr. Cullen reported having no disclosures. 

SOURCE: Waits JB et al. Ann Fam Med. 2020;18:446-51.

In rural counties, the absence of active labor and delivery (L&D) units is associated with a significant increase in perinatal mortality, according to a retrospective study using county-level data from the Alabama Department of Public Health.

stockce/Thinkstock

Although association does not establish causation, these data raise concern “for the current trend of diminishing L&D units that is occurring in many rural settings,” according to the authors of the study, led by John B. Waits, MD, of Cahaba Medical Care, Centreville, Ala., in Annals of Family Medicine.

When mortality per 1,000 live births was compared over a 15-year period (2003-2017) between 15 counties with and 21 counties without local L&D units, those with the units had lower overall infant mortality (9.23 vs. 7.89; P = .0011), perinatal mortality (8.89 vs. 10.82; P < .001), and neonatal mortality (4.74 vs. 5.67; P = .0034). The percentages of low-birth-weight babies born between 2003 and 2014 were 9.86% versus 10.61% (P < .001) for counties with and without L&D units, respectively.

The relative increased risks (RR) for these adverse outcomes in counties without L&D units were statistically significant and substantial, ranging from about 8% for a pregnancy resulting in a low-birth-weight infant to slightly more than 21% for perinatal mortality.

Over the study period, there were 165,525 live births in the 15 counties with L&D units and 72,177 births in the 21 counties with no such units. In counties without L&D units, the average proportion of White people was higher (73.47% vs. 60.86%), and that of African Americans was lower (22.76% vs. 36.23%). Median income ($40,759 vs. $35,604) and per capita income ($22,474 vs. $20,641) was slightly higher.

Of the 67 counties in Alabama, this study did not include those considered urbanized by the Alabama Office of Management and Budget even if classified rural by other statewide offices, such as the Alabama Rural Health Association. Any county with at least one L&D unit was considered to have a local unit. Three counties with L&D units that closed before the observation period was completed were excluded from the analysis.

The Alabama data appear to identify a major problem in need of an urgent solution, according to John S. Cullen, MD, a family physician in Valdez, Alaska, and chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians Board of Directors.

“Almost 20% of U.S. women of reproductive age live in rural communities,” he said in an interview. The data from this study provides compelling evidence “that the loss of rural maternity care in this country has contributed to the increase in newborn mortality in rural communities.”

There are many limitations for this study, according to the authors. They acknowledged that they could not control for many potentially important variables, such as travel time to hospitals for those in counties with L&D units when compared with those without. They also acknowledged the lack of data regarding availability of prenatal care in places with or without L&D units.

If lack of L&D services in rural areas is a source of adverse outcomes, data suggesting that the ongoing decline in L&D units are worrisome, according to the authors. Of studies they cited, one showed nearly a 10% loss in rural L&D services in a recent 10-year period.

The authors also noted that about half of the 3,143 counties in the United States do not have a practicing obstetrician, and that fewer than 7% of obstetricians-gynecologists practice in rural settings.

In many rural counties, including the county where the lead author practices, family practitioners provide 100% of local obstetric care, but access to these clinicians also appears to be declining, according to the paper. The ratio of primary care physicians to patients is already lower in non-metropolitan than metropolitan areas (39.8 vs. 53.3). The American Board of Family Medicine has reported that fewer than 10% of family physicians now provide maternity care, the authors wrote.

“If a causal relationship does exist [between lack of L&D units and adverse perinatal outcomes], then rural populations would definitively benefit from having local access to a L&D unit,” the authors stated.

The lead author, Dr. Waits, said in an interview that there are two obstacles to an increase in rural L&D units: malpractice premiums and reimbursement for indigent deliveries. The large malpractice premiums required to cover OB care are hurdles for caregivers, such as family physicians, as well as the hospitals where they practice.

Reforms from the legislative or regulatory perspective are needed to permit malpractice insurance to be issued at a reasonable cost, according to Dr. Waits. Such reforms are a “moral imperative” so that the malpractice issue is not allowed to “shipwreck infant and maternal mortality,” he said.

Of the many potential solutions, such as increased use of telemedicine, legislative initiatives to reduce the malpractice burden, or new support and incentives for family physicians to deliver OB care, each is burdened with obstacles to overcome, according to Dr. Waits. This does not mean these solutions should not be pursued alone or together, but he made it clear that the no solution is easy. In the meantime, Dr. Waits indicated a need to consider practical and immediate strategies to fix the problem.

“There should be incentives for rural emergency departments and ambulance systems to train in the [American Academy of Family Physicians’] Basic Life Support in Obstetrics (BLSO) certification courses each year. I am not aware of any specific evidence around this, but it is a known fact that, when L&Ds close, institutional memory of OB emergencies recede, and preparedness suffers,” he said.

Dr. Cullen agreed that if the closing of L&D units explains the higher rate of perinatal mortality in rural areas, both short-term and long-term solutions are needed.

“Every community must have a plan for obstetric and newborn emergencies. The decision to not offer maternity care means that rural providers will still provide maternity care but not be ready for emergencies,” he said, echoing a point made by Dr. Waits.

The study authors disclosed no conflicts. Dr. Cullen reported having no disclosures. 

SOURCE: Waits JB et al. Ann Fam Med. 2020;18:446-51.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2015 Cochrane review of the LNG-IUS for menorrhagia included 1 placebo-controlled RCT; most of the remaining 21 RCTs compared the LNG-IUS to invasive procedures such as endometrial ablation or hysterectomy.¹ The placebo-controlled trial compared the LNG-IUS with placebo in 40 women on anticoagulation therapy and found a mean beneficial difference of 100 mL (95% confidence interval [CI], –116 to –83) using a subjective pictorial blood assessment chart.

Women are less likely to withdraw from LNG-IUS treatment

Four trials (379 patients) included in the Cochrane review compared LNG-IUS with combination or progesterone-only pills. All of the trials excluded women with palpable or large (> 5 cm) fibroids. In 3 trials (2 against OCPs and 1 against a 10-day course of oral progesterone), the LNG-IUS decreased MBL more than OCPs did. A fourth trial found LNG-IUS comparable to oral progesterone dosed 3 times a day from Day 5 to Day 26 of each menstrual cycle.

A recent large RCT (571 patients) that compared LNG-IUS with usual medical treatment (mefenamic acid [MFA], tranexamic acid, norethindrone, OCPs, progesterone-­only pill, medroxyprogesterone acetate injection) found women significantly less likely to withdraw from LNG-IUS at 2 years (relative risk [RR] = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.49-0.70).²

Estrogen and progestin contraceptives significantly reduce bleeding

In addition to the trials in the 2015 Cochrane review comparing OCPs with LNG-IUS, a 2009 Cochrane review included a single 2-month crossover trial of 45 patients.³ This RCT compared OCPs with naproxen, MFA, and danazol to treat heavy menstrual bleeding (assessed using the alkaline haematin method).

Researchers didn’t analyze the data using intention-to-treat. No group was found to be superior. The OCP group (6 women) had a 43% reduction in MBL over baseline (no P value reported).

Tranexamic acid outperforms oral progesterone and NSAIDs but not ...

A 2018 Cochrane meta-analysis of 13 RCTs (1312 patients) of antifibrinolytics for reproductive-age women with regular heavy periods and no known underlying pathology included 4 RCTs (565 patients) that used placebo as a comparator.⁴ Therapy with tranexamic acid decreased blood loss by53 mL per cycle (95% CI, 44-63 mL), a 40% to 50% improvement compared with placebo. Three of the RCTs (271 patients) reported the percent of women improving on tranexamic acid as 43% to 63%, compared with 11% for placebo, resulting in an NNT of 2 to 3.

In head-to-head comparisons, women were more likely to improve with the LNG-IUS than tranexamic acid for reducing menstrual blood loss.

One trial (46 patients) found tranexamic acid superior to luteal phase oral progesterone, and another study (48 patients) demonstrated superiority to NSAIDs, with a mean decrease in MBL of 86 mL compared with 43 mL (P < .0027).

Continue to: On the other hand...

On the other hand, tranexamic acid compared unfavorably with LNG-IUS (1 RCT, 42 patients), showing a lower likelihood of improvement (RR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.77). Whereas 85% of women improved with LNG-IUS, only 20% to 65% of women improved with tranexamic acid (NNT = 2 to 6). 

No statistical difference was found in gastrointestinal adverse effects, headache, vaginal dryness, or dysmenorrhea.⁴ Only 1 thromboembolic event occurred in the 2 studies that reported this outcome, a known risk that prohibits its concomitant use with combination OCPs.

Different NSAIDs, equivalent efficacy

A 2013 Cochrane review of 18 RCTs included 8 (84 patients) that compared NSAIDs (5 MFA, 2 naproxen, 1 ibuprofen) with placebo.⁵ In 6 trials, NSAIDs produced a significant reduction in MBL compared with placebo, although most were crossover trials that couldn’t be compiled into the meta-analysis.

One trial (11 patients) showed a mean reduction of 124 mL (95% CI, 62-186 mL) in the MFA group. In another trial, women were less likely to report no improvement in the MFA group than in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03-0.18). No NSAID had significantly higher efficacy than the others.

Danazol was superior to NSAIDs in a meta-analysis of 3 trials (79 patients) with a mean difference of 45 mL (95% CI, 19-71 mL), as was tranexamic acid in a single trial (48 patients) with a mean difference of 73 mL (95% CI, 22-124 mL).⁵ Comparisons with OCPs, oral progesterone, and an older model of LNG-IUS showed no significant ­differences. The most common adverse effects were gastrointestinal.

Continue to: Danazol linked to weight gain and other adverse effects

 

 

Danazol linked to weight gain and other adverse effects

A 2010 Cochrane review evaluated 9 RCTs, including 1 (66 patients) comparing danazol 200 mg with placebo that showed a significant decrease in subjectively assessed MBL in the danazol group.⁶ The study, which only 22 women finished, didn’t address ­intention-to-treat and used an unidentified scoring system. Patients also reported a significant 6.7-kg weight gain (95% CI, 1-12.4) after 3 months of treatment.

In addition to the 2013 meta-analysis showing danazol to be superior to NSAIDs, several studies⁶ compared danazol favorably with oral progesterone, although not all results reached significance. One study (37 patients) showed that women were more likely to rate the efficacy of danazol as moderate or high compared with progesterone (OR = 4.3; 95% CI, 1.1-17.0), but the mean difference in MBL (–36 mL; 95% CI, −102 to 31 mL) wasn’t statistically significant.

Of note, both a meta-analysis of 4 of the studies (117 patients) and another study comparing danazol with NSAIDs (20 patients) found significantly more adverse effects in the danazol group. Commonly reported adverse effects were acne, weight gain, headache, nausea, and tiredness.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A comparative effectiveness review by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality concluded that evidence showed efficacy for 4 primary care interventions for heavy cyclic bleeding: LNG-IUS, NSAIDs, tranexamic acid, and combination OCPs.⁷

The United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Care and Excellence (NICE) recommends pharmaceutical treatment when no structural or histologic abnormality is present or when fibroids are < 3 cm in diameter.⁸ NICE advises considering pharmaceutical treatments in the following order: first, LNG-IUS if long-term use (at least 12 months) is anticipated; second, tranexamic acid or NSAIDs; and third, combination OCPs, norethisterone (15 mg) daily from Days 5 to 26 of the menstrual cycle, or injected long-acting progestogen.

Editor’s takeaway

I was taught to use combination OCPs as first-line treatment for menorrhagia, but better evidence supports using any of these 4: LNG-IUS, tranexamic acid, danazol, or NSAIDs. In the absence of clear evidence demonstrating differences in efficacy, I would use them in the reverse order for cost-effectiveness reasons.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2015 Cochrane review of the LNG-IUS for menorrhagia included 1 placebo-controlled RCT; most of the remaining 21 RCTs compared the LNG-IUS to invasive procedures such as endometrial ablation or hysterectomy.¹ The placebo-controlled trial compared the LNG-IUS with placebo in 40 women on anticoagulation therapy and found a mean beneficial difference of 100 mL (95% confidence interval [CI], –116 to –83) using a subjective pictorial blood assessment chart.

Women are less likely to withdraw from LNG-IUS treatment

Four trials (379 patients) included in the Cochrane review compared LNG-IUS with combination or progesterone-only pills. All of the trials excluded women with palpable or large (> 5 cm) fibroids. In 3 trials (2 against OCPs and 1 against a 10-day course of oral progesterone), the LNG-IUS decreased MBL more than OCPs did. A fourth trial found LNG-IUS comparable to oral progesterone dosed 3 times a day from Day 5 to Day 26 of each menstrual cycle.

A recent large RCT (571 patients) that compared LNG-IUS with usual medical treatment (mefenamic acid [MFA], tranexamic acid, norethindrone, OCPs, progesterone-­only pill, medroxyprogesterone acetate injection) found women significantly less likely to withdraw from LNG-IUS at 2 years (relative risk [RR] = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.49-0.70).²

Estrogen and progestin contraceptives significantly reduce bleeding

In addition to the trials in the 2015 Cochrane review comparing OCPs with LNG-IUS, a 2009 Cochrane review included a single 2-month crossover trial of 45 patients.³ This RCT compared OCPs with naproxen, MFA, and danazol to treat heavy menstrual bleeding (assessed using the alkaline haematin method).

Researchers didn’t analyze the data using intention-to-treat. No group was found to be superior. The OCP group (6 women) had a 43% reduction in MBL over baseline (no P value reported).

Tranexamic acid outperforms oral progesterone and NSAIDs but not ...

A 2018 Cochrane meta-analysis of 13 RCTs (1312 patients) of antifibrinolytics for reproductive-age women with regular heavy periods and no known underlying pathology included 4 RCTs (565 patients) that used placebo as a comparator.⁴ Therapy with tranexamic acid decreased blood loss by53 mL per cycle (95% CI, 44-63 mL), a 40% to 50% improvement compared with placebo. Three of the RCTs (271 patients) reported the percent of women improving on tranexamic acid as 43% to 63%, compared with 11% for placebo, resulting in an NNT of 2 to 3.

In head-to-head comparisons, women were more likely to improve with the LNG-IUS than tranexamic acid for reducing menstrual blood loss.

One trial (46 patients) found tranexamic acid superior to luteal phase oral progesterone, and another study (48 patients) demonstrated superiority to NSAIDs, with a mean decrease in MBL of 86 mL compared with 43 mL (P < .0027).

Continue to: On the other hand...

On the other hand, tranexamic acid compared unfavorably with LNG-IUS (1 RCT, 42 patients), showing a lower likelihood of improvement (RR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.77). Whereas 85% of women improved with LNG-IUS, only 20% to 65% of women improved with tranexamic acid (NNT = 2 to 6). 

No statistical difference was found in gastrointestinal adverse effects, headache, vaginal dryness, or dysmenorrhea.⁴ Only 1 thromboembolic event occurred in the 2 studies that reported this outcome, a known risk that prohibits its concomitant use with combination OCPs.

Different NSAIDs, equivalent efficacy

A 2013 Cochrane review of 18 RCTs included 8 (84 patients) that compared NSAIDs (5 MFA, 2 naproxen, 1 ibuprofen) with placebo.⁵ In 6 trials, NSAIDs produced a significant reduction in MBL compared with placebo, although most were crossover trials that couldn’t be compiled into the meta-analysis.

One trial (11 patients) showed a mean reduction of 124 mL (95% CI, 62-186 mL) in the MFA group. In another trial, women were less likely to report no improvement in the MFA group than in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03-0.18). No NSAID had significantly higher efficacy than the others.

Danazol was superior to NSAIDs in a meta-analysis of 3 trials (79 patients) with a mean difference of 45 mL (95% CI, 19-71 mL), as was tranexamic acid in a single trial (48 patients) with a mean difference of 73 mL (95% CI, 22-124 mL).⁵ Comparisons with OCPs, oral progesterone, and an older model of LNG-IUS showed no significant ­differences. The most common adverse effects were gastrointestinal.

Continue to: Danazol linked to weight gain and other adverse effects

 

 

Danazol linked to weight gain and other adverse effects

A 2010 Cochrane review evaluated 9 RCTs, including 1 (66 patients) comparing danazol 200 mg with placebo that showed a significant decrease in subjectively assessed MBL in the danazol group.⁶ The study, which only 22 women finished, didn’t address ­intention-to-treat and used an unidentified scoring system. Patients also reported a significant 6.7-kg weight gain (95% CI, 1-12.4) after 3 months of treatment.

In addition to the 2013 meta-analysis showing danazol to be superior to NSAIDs, several studies⁶ compared danazol favorably with oral progesterone, although not all results reached significance. One study (37 patients) showed that women were more likely to rate the efficacy of danazol as moderate or high compared with progesterone (OR = 4.3; 95% CI, 1.1-17.0), but the mean difference in MBL (–36 mL; 95% CI, −102 to 31 mL) wasn’t statistically significant.

Of note, both a meta-analysis of 4 of the studies (117 patients) and another study comparing danazol with NSAIDs (20 patients) found significantly more adverse effects in the danazol group. Commonly reported adverse effects were acne, weight gain, headache, nausea, and tiredness.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A comparative effectiveness review by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality concluded that evidence showed efficacy for 4 primary care interventions for heavy cyclic bleeding: LNG-IUS, NSAIDs, tranexamic acid, and combination OCPs.⁷

The United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Care and Excellence (NICE) recommends pharmaceutical treatment when no structural or histologic abnormality is present or when fibroids are < 3 cm in diameter.⁸ NICE advises considering pharmaceutical treatments in the following order: first, LNG-IUS if long-term use (at least 12 months) is anticipated; second, tranexamic acid or NSAIDs; and third, combination OCPs, norethisterone (15 mg) daily from Days 5 to 26 of the menstrual cycle, or injected long-acting progestogen.

Editor’s takeaway

I was taught to use combination OCPs as first-line treatment for menorrhagia, but better evidence supports using any of these 4: LNG-IUS, tranexamic acid, danazol, or NSAIDs. In the absence of clear evidence demonstrating differences in efficacy, I would use them in the reverse order for cost-effectiveness reasons.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2015 Cochrane review of the LNG-IUS for menorrhagia included 1 placebo-controlled RCT; most of the remaining 21 RCTs compared the LNG-IUS to invasive procedures such as endometrial ablation or hysterectomy.¹ The placebo-controlled trial compared the LNG-IUS with placebo in 40 women on anticoagulation therapy and found a mean beneficial difference of 100 mL (95% confidence interval [CI], –116 to –83) using a subjective pictorial blood assessment chart.

Women are less likely to withdraw from LNG-IUS treatment

Four trials (379 patients) included in the Cochrane review compared LNG-IUS with combination or progesterone-only pills. All of the trials excluded women with palpable or large (> 5 cm) fibroids. In 3 trials (2 against OCPs and 1 against a 10-day course of oral progesterone), the LNG-IUS decreased MBL more than OCPs did. A fourth trial found LNG-IUS comparable to oral progesterone dosed 3 times a day from Day 5 to Day 26 of each menstrual cycle.

A recent large RCT (571 patients) that compared LNG-IUS with usual medical treatment (mefenamic acid [MFA], tranexamic acid, norethindrone, OCPs, progesterone-­only pill, medroxyprogesterone acetate injection) found women significantly less likely to withdraw from LNG-IUS at 2 years (relative risk [RR] = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.49-0.70).²

Estrogen and progestin contraceptives significantly reduce bleeding

In addition to the trials in the 2015 Cochrane review comparing OCPs with LNG-IUS, a 2009 Cochrane review included a single 2-month crossover trial of 45 patients.³ This RCT compared OCPs with naproxen, MFA, and danazol to treat heavy menstrual bleeding (assessed using the alkaline haematin method).

Researchers didn’t analyze the data using intention-to-treat. No group was found to be superior. The OCP group (6 women) had a 43% reduction in MBL over baseline (no P value reported).

Tranexamic acid outperforms oral progesterone and NSAIDs but not ...

A 2018 Cochrane meta-analysis of 13 RCTs (1312 patients) of antifibrinolytics for reproductive-age women with regular heavy periods and no known underlying pathology included 4 RCTs (565 patients) that used placebo as a comparator.⁴ Therapy with tranexamic acid decreased blood loss by53 mL per cycle (95% CI, 44-63 mL), a 40% to 50% improvement compared with placebo. Three of the RCTs (271 patients) reported the percent of women improving on tranexamic acid as 43% to 63%, compared with 11% for placebo, resulting in an NNT of 2 to 3.

In head-to-head comparisons, women were more likely to improve with the LNG-IUS than tranexamic acid for reducing menstrual blood loss.

One trial (46 patients) found tranexamic acid superior to luteal phase oral progesterone, and another study (48 patients) demonstrated superiority to NSAIDs, with a mean decrease in MBL of 86 mL compared with 43 mL (P < .0027).

Continue to: On the other hand...

On the other hand, tranexamic acid compared unfavorably with LNG-IUS (1 RCT, 42 patients), showing a lower likelihood of improvement (RR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.77). Whereas 85% of women improved with LNG-IUS, only 20% to 65% of women improved with tranexamic acid (NNT = 2 to 6). 

No statistical difference was found in gastrointestinal adverse effects, headache, vaginal dryness, or dysmenorrhea.⁴ Only 1 thromboembolic event occurred in the 2 studies that reported this outcome, a known risk that prohibits its concomitant use with combination OCPs.

Different NSAIDs, equivalent efficacy

A 2013 Cochrane review of 18 RCTs included 8 (84 patients) that compared NSAIDs (5 MFA, 2 naproxen, 1 ibuprofen) with placebo.⁵ In 6 trials, NSAIDs produced a significant reduction in MBL compared with placebo, although most were crossover trials that couldn’t be compiled into the meta-analysis.

One trial (11 patients) showed a mean reduction of 124 mL (95% CI, 62-186 mL) in the MFA group. In another trial, women were less likely to report no improvement in the MFA group than in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03-0.18). No NSAID had significantly higher efficacy than the others.

Danazol was superior to NSAIDs in a meta-analysis of 3 trials (79 patients) with a mean difference of 45 mL (95% CI, 19-71 mL), as was tranexamic acid in a single trial (48 patients) with a mean difference of 73 mL (95% CI, 22-124 mL).⁵ Comparisons with OCPs, oral progesterone, and an older model of LNG-IUS showed no significant ­differences. The most common adverse effects were gastrointestinal.

Continue to: Danazol linked to weight gain and other adverse effects

 

 

Danazol linked to weight gain and other adverse effects

A 2010 Cochrane review evaluated 9 RCTs, including 1 (66 patients) comparing danazol 200 mg with placebo that showed a significant decrease in subjectively assessed MBL in the danazol group.⁶ The study, which only 22 women finished, didn’t address ­intention-to-treat and used an unidentified scoring system. Patients also reported a significant 6.7-kg weight gain (95% CI, 1-12.4) after 3 months of treatment.

In addition to the 2013 meta-analysis showing danazol to be superior to NSAIDs, several studies⁶ compared danazol favorably with oral progesterone, although not all results reached significance. One study (37 patients) showed that women were more likely to rate the efficacy of danazol as moderate or high compared with progesterone (OR = 4.3; 95% CI, 1.1-17.0), but the mean difference in MBL (–36 mL; 95% CI, −102 to 31 mL) wasn’t statistically significant.

Of note, both a meta-analysis of 4 of the studies (117 patients) and another study comparing danazol with NSAIDs (20 patients) found significantly more adverse effects in the danazol group. Commonly reported adverse effects were acne, weight gain, headache, nausea, and tiredness.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A comparative effectiveness review by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality concluded that evidence showed efficacy for 4 primary care interventions for heavy cyclic bleeding: LNG-IUS, NSAIDs, tranexamic acid, and combination OCPs.⁷

The United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Care and Excellence (NICE) recommends pharmaceutical treatment when no structural or histologic abnormality is present or when fibroids are < 3 cm in diameter.⁸ NICE advises considering pharmaceutical treatments in the following order: first, LNG-IUS if long-term use (at least 12 months) is anticipated; second, tranexamic acid or NSAIDs; and third, combination OCPs, norethisterone (15 mg) daily from Days 5 to 26 of the menstrual cycle, or injected long-acting progestogen.

Editor’s takeaway

I was taught to use combination OCPs as first-line treatment for menorrhagia, but better evidence supports using any of these 4: LNG-IUS, tranexamic acid, danazol, or NSAIDs. In the absence of clear evidence demonstrating differences in efficacy, I would use them in the reverse order for cost-effectiveness reasons.

One of every 10 pregnant or recently pregnant women in hospital was diagnosed with COVID-19, yet up to three-quarters were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis, according to a living systematic review from the PregCOV-19 Living Systematic Review Consortium.

dimarik/iStock/Getty Images

The study, published in BMJ, shows an increased risk of preterm delivery, as well as the need for invasive ventilation in these women, wrote John Allotey, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The findings “will produce a strong evidence base for living guidelines on COVID-19 and pregnancy,” they noted.

The systematic review included 77 studies, one-third each from the United States and China, with the remaining studies from Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The studies included women with COVID-19, of whom 13,118 were either pregnant or in the postpartum or postabortion period and 83,486 were of reproductive age but not pregnant. Some studies also included healthy pregnant women for comparison.

In the pregnant and recently pregnant women, the most common COVID-19 symptoms were fever (40%) and cough (39%), with lymphopenia (35%) and raised C reactive protein levels (49%) being the most common laboratory findings. Pregnant and recently pregnant women with COVID-19 were less likely to have fever (odds ratio, 0.43) and myalgia (OR, 0.48), compared with nonpregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19, reported the authors.

The overall preterm and spontaneous preterm birth rates in the COVID-19–positive women were 17% and 6% respectively. Dr. Allotey and authors noted that “these preterm births could be medically indicated, as the overall rates of spontaneous preterm births in pregnant women with COVID-19 was broadly similar to those observed in the pre-pandemic period.” There were 18 stillbirths and 6 neonatal deaths in the COVID-19 cohort.

Overall, 73 (0.1%) of pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 died from any cause, and severe COVID-19 infection was diagnosed in 13%. Maternal risk factors associated with severe infection included older age (OR, 1.78), high body mass index (OR, 2.3), chronic hypertension (OR, 2.0), and preexisting diabetes (OR, 2.51). Compared with nonpregnant women with COVID-19, pregnant or recently pregnant women with the infection were at increased risk of admission to intensive care (OR, 1.62) and needing invasive ventilation (OR, 1.88).

The report included studies published between December 1, 2019, and June 26, 2020, but the living systematic review will involve weekly search updates, with analysis performed every 2-4 weeks and reported through a dedicated website.
 

The value of a living meta-analysis

Asked to comment on the findings, Torri Metz, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, expressed surprise at the 10% rate of infection in the pregnant or recently pregnant population. “This is higher than currently observed at many hospitals in the United States,” she said in an interview. “This may overestimate the actual risk as many of these studies were published early in the pandemic and did not universally sample women who were pregnant for SARS-CoV-2.”

She noted the value of a living meta-analysis in that it will be updated on a regular basis as new evidence emerges. “During this time of rapidly accumulating publications about COVID-19 infection, clinicians will find it useful to have a resource in which the available data can be combined in one source.”

And there are still some outstanding questions that new studies hopefully will shed light on, she added. “The authors found that many of the risk factors for severe disease, like diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure, in nonpregnant adults are the same in the pregnant population. What remains unknown is if pregnant patients with COVID-19 infection are at higher risk than those who are not pregnant. The authors note that this information is still limited and largely influenced in this published analysis by a CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] study in which the majority of patients had unknown pregnancy status. We also do not know if COVID-19 infection is associated with any birth defects since the majority of women with COVID-19 infection in the first trimester have not yet delivered.”

Malavika Prabhu, MD, an obstetetrician/gyneologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City added that “this systematic review and meta analysis, which is a compilation of other studies done around the globe, confirms that pregnant women with preexisting medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and that pregnant women with COVID-19 are at increased risk of invasive ventilation, compared to nonpregnant women with COVID-19, particularly if they have a preexisting medical condition.”

She said the preterm delivery rate of COVID-positive women is “challenging to interpret given that the total preterm birth rate potentially included many medically indicated preterm deliveries – which is to be expected – and there is no comparison group for spontaneous preterm birth presented”.

Other outstanding questions about COVID-19 pregnancies include whether they are associated with preeclampsia or smaller/growth restricted infants and why the cesarean delivery rate is high, she said. “But some of these questions are tough to answer with this data because it primarily reflects a COVID infection close to the delivery, not one that occurred several months prior to a delivery.”

Deborah Money, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, medicine, and the school of population and public health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, commented that “this is a group that have been doing ongoing living systematic reviews of the literature scanning for pregnancy outcomes. They post their information in real time on their website, so many of us in this area follow these postings as their methodology is robust and they work hard to only include high-quality literature and avoid duplication of cases in multiple papers. There has been a problem of re-reporting the same severe cases of COVID-19 in the literature.”

This “amplifies the importance of collecting Canadian-specific data to ensure that we understand if these kind of outcomes will also be found in Canada. The data presented in this paper represent outcomes from a broad range of countries with different methods of collecting information on pregnancy and highly variable prenatal care systems. This makes our pan-Canadian study of outcomes of COVID-19 for pregnant women and their infants, CANCOVID-Preg, even more important,” she said.

“Globally, we all must continue to monitor outcomes of COVID-19 in pregnancy to minimize adverse impact on women and their infants,” said Dr. Money, who was not involved in the study.

The study was partially funded by the World Health Organization and supported by Katie’s Team, a dedicated patient and public involvement group in Women’s Health. Dr. Metz is principal investigator for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network COVID-19 study; the study is funded by NICHD and enrollment is ongoing. Dr. Prabhu had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Money received funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada and received a small grant from theBC Women’s Foundation for COVID-19 in pregnancy research.

SOURCE: Allotey J et al. BMJ. 2020;370:m3320.

One of every 10 pregnant or recently pregnant women in hospital was diagnosed with COVID-19, yet up to three-quarters were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis, according to a living systematic review from the PregCOV-19 Living Systematic Review Consortium.

dimarik/iStock/Getty Images

The study, published in BMJ, shows an increased risk of preterm delivery, as well as the need for invasive ventilation in these women, wrote John Allotey, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The findings “will produce a strong evidence base for living guidelines on COVID-19 and pregnancy,” they noted.

The systematic review included 77 studies, one-third each from the United States and China, with the remaining studies from Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The studies included women with COVID-19, of whom 13,118 were either pregnant or in the postpartum or postabortion period and 83,486 were of reproductive age but not pregnant. Some studies also included healthy pregnant women for comparison.

In the pregnant and recently pregnant women, the most common COVID-19 symptoms were fever (40%) and cough (39%), with lymphopenia (35%) and raised C reactive protein levels (49%) being the most common laboratory findings. Pregnant and recently pregnant women with COVID-19 were less likely to have fever (odds ratio, 0.43) and myalgia (OR, 0.48), compared with nonpregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19, reported the authors.

The overall preterm and spontaneous preterm birth rates in the COVID-19–positive women were 17% and 6% respectively. Dr. Allotey and authors noted that “these preterm births could be medically indicated, as the overall rates of spontaneous preterm births in pregnant women with COVID-19 was broadly similar to those observed in the pre-pandemic period.” There were 18 stillbirths and 6 neonatal deaths in the COVID-19 cohort.

Overall, 73 (0.1%) of pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 died from any cause, and severe COVID-19 infection was diagnosed in 13%. Maternal risk factors associated with severe infection included older age (OR, 1.78), high body mass index (OR, 2.3), chronic hypertension (OR, 2.0), and preexisting diabetes (OR, 2.51). Compared with nonpregnant women with COVID-19, pregnant or recently pregnant women with the infection were at increased risk of admission to intensive care (OR, 1.62) and needing invasive ventilation (OR, 1.88).

The report included studies published between December 1, 2019, and June 26, 2020, but the living systematic review will involve weekly search updates, with analysis performed every 2-4 weeks and reported through a dedicated website.
 

The value of a living meta-analysis

Asked to comment on the findings, Torri Metz, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, expressed surprise at the 10% rate of infection in the pregnant or recently pregnant population. “This is higher than currently observed at many hospitals in the United States,” she said in an interview. “This may overestimate the actual risk as many of these studies were published early in the pandemic and did not universally sample women who were pregnant for SARS-CoV-2.”

She noted the value of a living meta-analysis in that it will be updated on a regular basis as new evidence emerges. “During this time of rapidly accumulating publications about COVID-19 infection, clinicians will find it useful to have a resource in which the available data can be combined in one source.”

And there are still some outstanding questions that new studies hopefully will shed light on, she added. “The authors found that many of the risk factors for severe disease, like diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure, in nonpregnant adults are the same in the pregnant population. What remains unknown is if pregnant patients with COVID-19 infection are at higher risk than those who are not pregnant. The authors note that this information is still limited and largely influenced in this published analysis by a CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] study in which the majority of patients had unknown pregnancy status. We also do not know if COVID-19 infection is associated with any birth defects since the majority of women with COVID-19 infection in the first trimester have not yet delivered.”

Malavika Prabhu, MD, an obstetetrician/gyneologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City added that “this systematic review and meta analysis, which is a compilation of other studies done around the globe, confirms that pregnant women with preexisting medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and that pregnant women with COVID-19 are at increased risk of invasive ventilation, compared to nonpregnant women with COVID-19, particularly if they have a preexisting medical condition.”

She said the preterm delivery rate of COVID-positive women is “challenging to interpret given that the total preterm birth rate potentially included many medically indicated preterm deliveries – which is to be expected – and there is no comparison group for spontaneous preterm birth presented”.

Other outstanding questions about COVID-19 pregnancies include whether they are associated with preeclampsia or smaller/growth restricted infants and why the cesarean delivery rate is high, she said. “But some of these questions are tough to answer with this data because it primarily reflects a COVID infection close to the delivery, not one that occurred several months prior to a delivery.”

Deborah Money, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, medicine, and the school of population and public health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, commented that “this is a group that have been doing ongoing living systematic reviews of the literature scanning for pregnancy outcomes. They post their information in real time on their website, so many of us in this area follow these postings as their methodology is robust and they work hard to only include high-quality literature and avoid duplication of cases in multiple papers. There has been a problem of re-reporting the same severe cases of COVID-19 in the literature.”

This “amplifies the importance of collecting Canadian-specific data to ensure that we understand if these kind of outcomes will also be found in Canada. The data presented in this paper represent outcomes from a broad range of countries with different methods of collecting information on pregnancy and highly variable prenatal care systems. This makes our pan-Canadian study of outcomes of COVID-19 for pregnant women and their infants, CANCOVID-Preg, even more important,” she said.

“Globally, we all must continue to monitor outcomes of COVID-19 in pregnancy to minimize adverse impact on women and their infants,” said Dr. Money, who was not involved in the study.

The study was partially funded by the World Health Organization and supported by Katie’s Team, a dedicated patient and public involvement group in Women’s Health. Dr. Metz is principal investigator for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network COVID-19 study; the study is funded by NICHD and enrollment is ongoing. Dr. Prabhu had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Money received funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada and received a small grant from theBC Women’s Foundation for COVID-19 in pregnancy research.

SOURCE: Allotey J et al. BMJ. 2020;370:m3320.

One of every 10 pregnant or recently pregnant women in hospital was diagnosed with COVID-19, yet up to three-quarters were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis, according to a living systematic review from the PregCOV-19 Living Systematic Review Consortium.

dimarik/iStock/Getty Images

The study, published in BMJ, shows an increased risk of preterm delivery, as well as the need for invasive ventilation in these women, wrote John Allotey, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The findings “will produce a strong evidence base for living guidelines on COVID-19 and pregnancy,” they noted.

The systematic review included 77 studies, one-third each from the United States and China, with the remaining studies from Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The studies included women with COVID-19, of whom 13,118 were either pregnant or in the postpartum or postabortion period and 83,486 were of reproductive age but not pregnant. Some studies also included healthy pregnant women for comparison.

In the pregnant and recently pregnant women, the most common COVID-19 symptoms were fever (40%) and cough (39%), with lymphopenia (35%) and raised C reactive protein levels (49%) being the most common laboratory findings. Pregnant and recently pregnant women with COVID-19 were less likely to have fever (odds ratio, 0.43) and myalgia (OR, 0.48), compared with nonpregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19, reported the authors.

The overall preterm and spontaneous preterm birth rates in the COVID-19–positive women were 17% and 6% respectively. Dr. Allotey and authors noted that “these preterm births could be medically indicated, as the overall rates of spontaneous preterm births in pregnant women with COVID-19 was broadly similar to those observed in the pre-pandemic period.” There were 18 stillbirths and 6 neonatal deaths in the COVID-19 cohort.

Overall, 73 (0.1%) of pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 died from any cause, and severe COVID-19 infection was diagnosed in 13%. Maternal risk factors associated with severe infection included older age (OR, 1.78), high body mass index (OR, 2.3), chronic hypertension (OR, 2.0), and preexisting diabetes (OR, 2.51). Compared with nonpregnant women with COVID-19, pregnant or recently pregnant women with the infection were at increased risk of admission to intensive care (OR, 1.62) and needing invasive ventilation (OR, 1.88).

The report included studies published between December 1, 2019, and June 26, 2020, but the living systematic review will involve weekly search updates, with analysis performed every 2-4 weeks and reported through a dedicated website.
 

The value of a living meta-analysis

Asked to comment on the findings, Torri Metz, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, expressed surprise at the 10% rate of infection in the pregnant or recently pregnant population. “This is higher than currently observed at many hospitals in the United States,” she said in an interview. “This may overestimate the actual risk as many of these studies were published early in the pandemic and did not universally sample women who were pregnant for SARS-CoV-2.”

She noted the value of a living meta-analysis in that it will be updated on a regular basis as new evidence emerges. “During this time of rapidly accumulating publications about COVID-19 infection, clinicians will find it useful to have a resource in which the available data can be combined in one source.”

And there are still some outstanding questions that new studies hopefully will shed light on, she added. “The authors found that many of the risk factors for severe disease, like diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure, in nonpregnant adults are the same in the pregnant population. What remains unknown is if pregnant patients with COVID-19 infection are at higher risk than those who are not pregnant. The authors note that this information is still limited and largely influenced in this published analysis by a CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] study in which the majority of patients had unknown pregnancy status. We also do not know if COVID-19 infection is associated with any birth defects since the majority of women with COVID-19 infection in the first trimester have not yet delivered.”

Malavika Prabhu, MD, an obstetetrician/gyneologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City added that “this systematic review and meta analysis, which is a compilation of other studies done around the globe, confirms that pregnant women with preexisting medical conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and that pregnant women with COVID-19 are at increased risk of invasive ventilation, compared to nonpregnant women with COVID-19, particularly if they have a preexisting medical condition.”

She said the preterm delivery rate of COVID-positive women is “challenging to interpret given that the total preterm birth rate potentially included many medically indicated preterm deliveries – which is to be expected – and there is no comparison group for spontaneous preterm birth presented”.

Other outstanding questions about COVID-19 pregnancies include whether they are associated with preeclampsia or smaller/growth restricted infants and why the cesarean delivery rate is high, she said. “But some of these questions are tough to answer with this data because it primarily reflects a COVID infection close to the delivery, not one that occurred several months prior to a delivery.”

Deborah Money, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, medicine, and the school of population and public health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, commented that “this is a group that have been doing ongoing living systematic reviews of the literature scanning for pregnancy outcomes. They post their information in real time on their website, so many of us in this area follow these postings as their methodology is robust and they work hard to only include high-quality literature and avoid duplication of cases in multiple papers. There has been a problem of re-reporting the same severe cases of COVID-19 in the literature.”

This “amplifies the importance of collecting Canadian-specific data to ensure that we understand if these kind of outcomes will also be found in Canada. The data presented in this paper represent outcomes from a broad range of countries with different methods of collecting information on pregnancy and highly variable prenatal care systems. This makes our pan-Canadian study of outcomes of COVID-19 for pregnant women and their infants, CANCOVID-Preg, even more important,” she said.

“Globally, we all must continue to monitor outcomes of COVID-19 in pregnancy to minimize adverse impact on women and their infants,” said Dr. Money, who was not involved in the study.

The study was partially funded by the World Health Organization and supported by Katie’s Team, a dedicated patient and public involvement group in Women’s Health. Dr. Metz is principal investigator for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network COVID-19 study; the study is funded by NICHD and enrollment is ongoing. Dr. Prabhu had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Money received funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada and received a small grant from theBC Women’s Foundation for COVID-19 in pregnancy research.

SOURCE: Allotey J et al. BMJ. 2020;370:m3320.

Women are more than twice as likely as men to use antidepressants, and use among White women is at least double that of other races/ethnicities, according to a new analysis from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Here are the actual numbers: 17.7% of women and 8.4% of men used an antidepressant in the 30 days before being interviewed for the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Put them together, and it works out to 13.2% of all adults over the 4-year period from 2015 to 2018, Debra J. Brody, MPH, and Qiuping Gu, MD, PhD, said Sept. 4 in an NCHS data brief.

The racial/ethnic differences in antidepressant use were even greater, at least for women. Non-Hispanic White women had a past-30-day prevalence of 22.3%, compared with 10.0% for non-Hispanic Black women, 3.4% for non-Hispanic Asian women, and 8.9% for Hispanic women, based on the NHANES data.

The order was the same for men, but the numbers are lower. Non-Hispanic Whites had the highest antidepressant use at 10.5%, followed by non-Hispanic Blacks (5.0%), non-Hispanic Asians (2.1%), and Hispanics (4.0%). All of the differences between Whites and non-Whites were significant for both women and men, the researchers noted.

A look at trends over time shows that the gap between men and women has widened in the last 10 years. Past-30-day use among women went from 13.8% in 2009-2010 to 18.6% in 2017-2018, with a corresponding increase from 7.1% to 8.7% in men. For women, that change was significant; for men, it was not, Ms. Brody and Dr. Gu said.

The sample size averaged just over 6,000 for each of the five 2-year NHANES cycles included in the analysis. The survey includes a household interview and a physical examination at a mobile exam center.

[email protected]

Women are more than twice as likely as men to use antidepressants, and use among White women is at least double that of other races/ethnicities, according to a new analysis from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Here are the actual numbers: 17.7% of women and 8.4% of men used an antidepressant in the 30 days before being interviewed for the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Put them together, and it works out to 13.2% of all adults over the 4-year period from 2015 to 2018, Debra J. Brody, MPH, and Qiuping Gu, MD, PhD, said Sept. 4 in an NCHS data brief.

The racial/ethnic differences in antidepressant use were even greater, at least for women. Non-Hispanic White women had a past-30-day prevalence of 22.3%, compared with 10.0% for non-Hispanic Black women, 3.4% for non-Hispanic Asian women, and 8.9% for Hispanic women, based on the NHANES data.

The order was the same for men, but the numbers are lower. Non-Hispanic Whites had the highest antidepressant use at 10.5%, followed by non-Hispanic Blacks (5.0%), non-Hispanic Asians (2.1%), and Hispanics (4.0%). All of the differences between Whites and non-Whites were significant for both women and men, the researchers noted.

A look at trends over time shows that the gap between men and women has widened in the last 10 years. Past-30-day use among women went from 13.8% in 2009-2010 to 18.6% in 2017-2018, with a corresponding increase from 7.1% to 8.7% in men. For women, that change was significant; for men, it was not, Ms. Brody and Dr. Gu said.

The sample size averaged just over 6,000 for each of the five 2-year NHANES cycles included in the analysis. The survey includes a household interview and a physical examination at a mobile exam center.

[email protected]

Women are more than twice as likely as men to use antidepressants, and use among White women is at least double that of other races/ethnicities, according to a new analysis from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Here are the actual numbers: 17.7% of women and 8.4% of men used an antidepressant in the 30 days before being interviewed for the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Put them together, and it works out to 13.2% of all adults over the 4-year period from 2015 to 2018, Debra J. Brody, MPH, and Qiuping Gu, MD, PhD, said Sept. 4 in an NCHS data brief.

The racial/ethnic differences in antidepressant use were even greater, at least for women. Non-Hispanic White women had a past-30-day prevalence of 22.3%, compared with 10.0% for non-Hispanic Black women, 3.4% for non-Hispanic Asian women, and 8.9% for Hispanic women, based on the NHANES data.

The order was the same for men, but the numbers are lower. Non-Hispanic Whites had the highest antidepressant use at 10.5%, followed by non-Hispanic Blacks (5.0%), non-Hispanic Asians (2.1%), and Hispanics (4.0%). All of the differences between Whites and non-Whites were significant for both women and men, the researchers noted.

A look at trends over time shows that the gap between men and women has widened in the last 10 years. Past-30-day use among women went from 13.8% in 2009-2010 to 18.6% in 2017-2018, with a corresponding increase from 7.1% to 8.7% in men. For women, that change was significant; for men, it was not, Ms. Brody and Dr. Gu said.

The sample size averaged just over 6,000 for each of the five 2-year NHANES cycles included in the analysis. The survey includes a household interview and a physical examination at a mobile exam center.

[email protected]

With an average age of diagnosis of 28 years, and one of two incidence peaks occurring at 15-30 years, psoriasis affects many women in the midst of their reproductive years. The prospect of pregnancy – or the reality of a surprise pregnancy – drives questions about heritability of the disease in offspring, the impact of the disease on pregnancy outcomes and breastfeeding, and how to best balance risks of treatments with risks of uncontrolled psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

shironosov/Getty Images

While answers to these questions are not always clear, discussions about pregnancy and psoriasis management “shouldn’t be scary,” said Jenny E. Murase, MD, a dermatologist who speaks and writes widely about her research and experience with psoriasis and pregnancy. “We have access to information and data and educational resources to [work with] and reassure our patients – we just need to use it. Right now, there’s unnecessary suffering [with some patients unnecessarily stopping all treatment].”

Much has been learned in the past 2 decades about the course of psoriasis in pregnancy, and pregnancy outcomes data on the safety of biologics during pregnancy are increasingly emerging – particularly for tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors.

Ideally, since half of all pregnancies are unplanned, the implications of therapeutic options should be discussed with all women with psoriasis who are of reproductive age, whether they are sexually active or not. “The onus is on us to make sure that we’re considering the possibility [that our patient] could become pregnant without consulting us first,” said Dr. Murase, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of medical consultative dermatology for the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group in Mountain View, Calif.

Lisa R. Sammaritano, MD, associate professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine and a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, both in New York, urges similar attention for PsA. “Pregnancy is best planned while patients have quiescent disease on pregnancy-compatible medications,” she said. “We encourage [more] rheumatologists to be actively involved in pregnancy planning [in order] to guide therapy.”

The impact of estrogen

Dr. Murase was inspired to study psoriasis and pregnancy in part by a patient she met as a medical student. “She had severe psoriasis covering her body, and she said that the only times her psoriasis cleared was during her three pregnancies,” Dr. Murase recalled. “I wondered: What about the pregnancies resulted in such a substantial reduction of her psoriasis?”

She subsequently led a study, published in 2005, of 47 pregnant and 27 nonpregnant patients with psoriasis. More than half of the patients – 55% – reported improvements in their psoriasis during pregnancy, 21% reported no change, and 23% reported worsening. Among the 16 patients who had 10% or greater psoriatic body surface area (BSA) involvement and reported improvements, lesions decreased by 84%.

In the postpartum period, only 9% reported improvement, 26% reported no change, and 65% reported worsening. The increased BSA values observed 6 weeks postpartum did not exceed those of the first trimester, suggesting a return to the patients’ baseline status.

Earlier and smaller retrospective studies had also shown that approximately half of patients improve during pregnancy, and it was believed that progesterone was most likely responsible for this improvement. Dr. Murase’s study moved the needle in that it examined BSA in pregnancy and the postpartum period. It also turned the spotlight on estrogen: Patients who had higher levels of improvement also had higher levels of estradiol, estrone, and the ratio of estrogen to progesterone. However, there was no correlation between psoriatic change and levels of progesterone.

To promote fetal survival, pregnancy triggers a shift from Th1 cell–mediated immunity – and Th17 immunity – to Th2 immunity. While there’s no proof of a causative effect, increased estrogen appears to play a role in this shift and in the reduced production of Th1 and Th17 cytokines. Psoriasis is believed to be primarily a Th17-mediated disease, with some Th1 involvement, so this down-regulation can result in improved disease status, Dr. Murase said. (A host of other autoimmune diseases categorized as Th1 mediated similarly tend to improve during pregnancy, she added.)

Information on the effect of pregnancy on PsA is “conflicting,” Dr. Sammaritano said. “Some [of a limited number of studies] suggest a beneficial effect as is generally seen for rheumatoid arthritis. Others, however, have found an increased risk of disease activity during pregnancy ... It may be that psoriatic arthritis can be quite variable from patient to patient in its clinical presentation.”

At least one study, Dr. Sammaritano added, “has shown that the arthritis in pregnancy patients with PsA did not improve, compared to control nonpregnant patients, while the psoriasis rash did improve.”

The mixed findings don’t surprise Dr. Murase. “It harder to quantify joint disease in general,” she said. “And during pregnancy, physiologic changes relating to the pregnancy itself can cause discomfort – your joints ache. The numbers [of improved] cases aren’t as high with PsA, but it’s a more complex question.”

In the postpartum period, however, research findings “all suggest an increased risk of flare” of PsA, Dr. Sammaritano said, just as with psoriasis.
 

Assessing risk of treatment

Understanding the immunologic effects of pregnancy on psoriasis and PsA – and appreciating the concept of a hormonal component – is an important part of treatment decision making. So is understanding pregnancy outcomes data.

Researchers have looked at a host of pregnancy outcomes – including congenital malformations, preterm birth, spontaneous abortion, low birth weight, macrosomia, and gestational diabetes and hypertension – in women with psoriasis or psoriasis/PsA, compared with control groups. Some studies have suggested a link between disease activity and pregnancy complications or adverse pregnancy outcomes, “just as a result of having moderate to severe disease,” while others have found no evidence of increased risk, Dr. Murase said.

“It’s a bit unclear and a difficult question to answer; it depends on what study you look at and what data you believe. It would be nice to have some clarity, but basically the jury is still out,” said Dr. Murase, who, with coauthors Alice B. Gottlieb, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and Caitriona Ryan, MD, of the Blackrock Clinic and Charles Institute of Dermatology, University College Dublin, discussed the pregnancy outcomes data in a recently published review of psoriasis in women.

“In my opinion, because we have therapies that are so low risk and well tolerated, it’s better to make sure that the inflammatory cascade and inflammation created by psoriasis is under control,” she said. “So whether or not the pregnancy itself causes the patient to go into remission, or whether you have to use therapy to help the patient stay in remission, it’s important to control the inflammation.”

Contraindicated in pregnancy are oral psoralen, methotrexate, and acitretin, the latter of which should be avoided for several years before pregnancy and “therefore shouldn’t be used in a woman of childbearing age,” said Dr. Murase. Methotrexate, said Dr. Sammaritano, should generally be stopped 1-3 months prior to conception.

For psoriasis, the therapy that’s “classically considered the safest in pregnancy is UVB light therapy, specifically the 300-nm wavelength of light, which works really well as an anti-inflammatory,” Dr. Murase said. Because of the potential for maternal folate degradation with phototherapy and the long-known association of folate deficiency with neural tube defects, women of childbearing age who are receiving light therapy should take daily folic acid supplementation. (She prescribes a daily prenatal vitamin containing at least 1 mg of folic acid for women who are utilizing light therapy.)

Many topical agents can be used during pregnancy, Dr. Murase said. Topical corticosteroids, she noted, have the most safety-affirming data of any topical medication.

Regarding oral therapies, Dr. Murase recommends against the use of apremilast (Otezla) for her patients. “It’s not contraindicated, but the animal studies don’t look promising, so I don’t use that one in women of childbearing age just in case. There’s just very little data to support the safety of this medication [in pregnancy].”

There are no therapeutic guidelines in the United States for guiding the management of psoriasis in women who are considering pregnancy. In 2012, the medical board of the National Psoriasis Foundation published a review of treatment options for psoriasis in pregnant or lactating women, the “closest thing to guidelines that we’ve had,” said Dr. Murase. (Now almost a decade old, the review addresses TNF inhibitors but does not cover the anti-interleukin agents more recently approved for moderate to severe psoriasis and PsA.)

For treating PsA, rheumatologists now have the American College of Rheumatology’s first guideline for the management of reproductive health in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases to reference. The 2020 guideline does not address PsA specifically, but its section on pregnancy and lactation includes recommendations on biologic and other therapies used to treat the disease.

Guidelines aside, physician-patient discussions over drug safety have the potential to be much more meaningful now that drug labels offer clinical summaries, data, and risk summaries regarding potential use in pregnancy. The labels have “more of a narrative, which is a more useful way to counsel patients and make risk-benefit decisions” than the former system of five-letter categories, said Dr. Murase. (The changes were made per the Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule of 2015.)

MothertoBaby, a service of the nonprofit Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, also provides good evidence-based information to physicians and mothers, Dr. Sammaritano noted.

The use of biologic therapies

In a 2017 review of biologic safety for patients with psoriasis during pregnancy, Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston; Martina L. Porter, MD, currently with the department of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston; and Stephen J. Lockwood, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, concluded that an increasing body of literature suggests that biologic agents can be used during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Anti-TNF agents “should be considered over IL-12/23 and IL-17 inhibitors due to the increased availability of long-term data,” they wrote.

“In general,” said Dr. Murase, “there’s more and more data coming out from gastroenterology and rheumatology to reassure patients and prescribing physicians that the TNF-blocker class is likely safe to use in pregnancy,” particularly during the first trimester and early second trimester, when the transport of maternal antibodies across the placenta is “essentially nonexistent.” In the third trimester, the active transport of IgG antibodies increases rapidly.

If possible, said Dr. Sammaritano, who served as lead author of the ACR’s reproductive health guideline, TNF inhibitors “will be stopped prior to the third trimester to avoid [the possibility of] high drug levels in the infant at birth, which raises concern for immunosuppression in the newborn. If disease is very active, however, they can be continued throughout the pregnancy.”

The TNF inhibitor certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) has the advantage of being transported only minimally across the placenta, if at all, she and Dr. Murase both explained. “To be actively carried across, antibodies need what’s called an Fc region for the placenta to grab onto,” Dr. Murase said. Certolizumab – a pegylated anti–binding fragment antibody – lacks this Fc region.

Two recent studies – CRIB and a UCB Pharma safety database analysis – showed “essentially no medication crossing – there were barely detectable levels,” Dr. Murase said. Certolizumab’s label contains this information and other clinical trial data as well as findings from safety database analyses/surveillance registries.

“Before we had much data for the biologics, I’d advise transitioning patients to light therapy from their biologics and a lot of times their psoriasis would improve, but it was more of a dance,” she said. “Now we tend to look at [certolizumab] when they’re of childbearing age and keep them on the treatment. I know that the baby is not being immunosuppressed.”

Consideration of the use of certolizumab when treatment with biologic agents is required throughout the pregnancy is a recommendation included in Dr. Kimball’s 2017 review.

As newer anti-interleukin agents – the IL-12/23 and IL-17 inhibitors – play a growing role in the treatment of psoriasis and PsA, questions loom about their safety profile. Dr. Murase and Dr. Sammaritano are waiting for more data. “In general,” Dr. Sammaritano said, “we recommend stopping them at the time pregnancy is detected, based on a lack of data at this time.”

Small-molecule drugs are also less well studied, she noted. “Because of their low molecular weight, we anticipate they will easily cross the placenta, so we recommend avoiding use during pregnancy until more information is available.”

Postpartum care

The good news, both experts say, is that the vast majority of medications, including biologics, are safe to use during breastfeeding. Methotrexate should be avoided, Dr. Sammaritano pointed out, and the impact of novel small-molecule therapies on breast milk has not been studied.

In her 2019 review of psoriasis in women, Dr. Murase and coauthors wrote that too many dermatologists believe that breastfeeding women should either not be on biologics or are uncertain about biologic use during breastfeeding. However, “biologics are considered compatible for use while breastfeeding due to their large molecular size and the proteolytic environment in the neonatal gastrointestinal tract,” they added.

Counseling and support for breastfeeding is especially important for women with psoriasis, Dr. Murase emphasized. “Breastfeeding is very traumatizing to the skin, and psoriasis can form in skin that’s injured. I have my patients set up an office visit very soon after the pregnancy to make sure they’re doing alright with their breastfeeding and that they’re coating their nipple area with some type of moisturizer and keeping the health of their nipples in good shape.”

Timely reviews of therapy and adjustments are also a priority, she said. “We need to prepare for 6 weeks post partum” when psoriasis will often flare without treatment.

Dr. Murase disclosed that she is a consultant for Dermira, UCB Pharma, Sanofi, Ferndale, and Regeneron. She is also coeditor in chief of the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology. Dr. Sammaritano reported that she has no disclosures relating to the treatment of PsA.

With an average age of diagnosis of 28 years, and one of two incidence peaks occurring at 15-30 years, psoriasis affects many women in the midst of their reproductive years. The prospect of pregnancy – or the reality of a surprise pregnancy – drives questions about heritability of the disease in offspring, the impact of the disease on pregnancy outcomes and breastfeeding, and how to best balance risks of treatments with risks of uncontrolled psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

shironosov/Getty Images

While answers to these questions are not always clear, discussions about pregnancy and psoriasis management “shouldn’t be scary,” said Jenny E. Murase, MD, a dermatologist who speaks and writes widely about her research and experience with psoriasis and pregnancy. “We have access to information and data and educational resources to [work with] and reassure our patients – we just need to use it. Right now, there’s unnecessary suffering [with some patients unnecessarily stopping all treatment].”

Much has been learned in the past 2 decades about the course of psoriasis in pregnancy, and pregnancy outcomes data on the safety of biologics during pregnancy are increasingly emerging – particularly for tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors.

Ideally, since half of all pregnancies are unplanned, the implications of therapeutic options should be discussed with all women with psoriasis who are of reproductive age, whether they are sexually active or not. “The onus is on us to make sure that we’re considering the possibility [that our patient] could become pregnant without consulting us first,” said Dr. Murase, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of medical consultative dermatology for the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group in Mountain View, Calif.

Lisa R. Sammaritano, MD, associate professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine and a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, both in New York, urges similar attention for PsA. “Pregnancy is best planned while patients have quiescent disease on pregnancy-compatible medications,” she said. “We encourage [more] rheumatologists to be actively involved in pregnancy planning [in order] to guide therapy.”

The impact of estrogen

Dr. Murase was inspired to study psoriasis and pregnancy in part by a patient she met as a medical student. “She had severe psoriasis covering her body, and she said that the only times her psoriasis cleared was during her three pregnancies,” Dr. Murase recalled. “I wondered: What about the pregnancies resulted in such a substantial reduction of her psoriasis?”

She subsequently led a study, published in 2005, of 47 pregnant and 27 nonpregnant patients with psoriasis. More than half of the patients – 55% – reported improvements in their psoriasis during pregnancy, 21% reported no change, and 23% reported worsening. Among the 16 patients who had 10% or greater psoriatic body surface area (BSA) involvement and reported improvements, lesions decreased by 84%.

In the postpartum period, only 9% reported improvement, 26% reported no change, and 65% reported worsening. The increased BSA values observed 6 weeks postpartum did not exceed those of the first trimester, suggesting a return to the patients’ baseline status.

Earlier and smaller retrospective studies had also shown that approximately half of patients improve during pregnancy, and it was believed that progesterone was most likely responsible for this improvement. Dr. Murase’s study moved the needle in that it examined BSA in pregnancy and the postpartum period. It also turned the spotlight on estrogen: Patients who had higher levels of improvement also had higher levels of estradiol, estrone, and the ratio of estrogen to progesterone. However, there was no correlation between psoriatic change and levels of progesterone.

To promote fetal survival, pregnancy triggers a shift from Th1 cell–mediated immunity – and Th17 immunity – to Th2 immunity. While there’s no proof of a causative effect, increased estrogen appears to play a role in this shift and in the reduced production of Th1 and Th17 cytokines. Psoriasis is believed to be primarily a Th17-mediated disease, with some Th1 involvement, so this down-regulation can result in improved disease status, Dr. Murase said. (A host of other autoimmune diseases categorized as Th1 mediated similarly tend to improve during pregnancy, she added.)

Information on the effect of pregnancy on PsA is “conflicting,” Dr. Sammaritano said. “Some [of a limited number of studies] suggest a beneficial effect as is generally seen for rheumatoid arthritis. Others, however, have found an increased risk of disease activity during pregnancy ... It may be that psoriatic arthritis can be quite variable from patient to patient in its clinical presentation.”

At least one study, Dr. Sammaritano added, “has shown that the arthritis in pregnancy patients with PsA did not improve, compared to control nonpregnant patients, while the psoriasis rash did improve.”

The mixed findings don’t surprise Dr. Murase. “It harder to quantify joint disease in general,” she said. “And during pregnancy, physiologic changes relating to the pregnancy itself can cause discomfort – your joints ache. The numbers [of improved] cases aren’t as high with PsA, but it’s a more complex question.”

In the postpartum period, however, research findings “all suggest an increased risk of flare” of PsA, Dr. Sammaritano said, just as with psoriasis.
 

Assessing risk of treatment

Understanding the immunologic effects of pregnancy on psoriasis and PsA – and appreciating the concept of a hormonal component – is an important part of treatment decision making. So is understanding pregnancy outcomes data.

Researchers have looked at a host of pregnancy outcomes – including congenital malformations, preterm birth, spontaneous abortion, low birth weight, macrosomia, and gestational diabetes and hypertension – in women with psoriasis or psoriasis/PsA, compared with control groups. Some studies have suggested a link between disease activity and pregnancy complications or adverse pregnancy outcomes, “just as a result of having moderate to severe disease,” while others have found no evidence of increased risk, Dr. Murase said.

“It’s a bit unclear and a difficult question to answer; it depends on what study you look at and what data you believe. It would be nice to have some clarity, but basically the jury is still out,” said Dr. Murase, who, with coauthors Alice B. Gottlieb, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and Caitriona Ryan, MD, of the Blackrock Clinic and Charles Institute of Dermatology, University College Dublin, discussed the pregnancy outcomes data in a recently published review of psoriasis in women.

“In my opinion, because we have therapies that are so low risk and well tolerated, it’s better to make sure that the inflammatory cascade and inflammation created by psoriasis is under control,” she said. “So whether or not the pregnancy itself causes the patient to go into remission, or whether you have to use therapy to help the patient stay in remission, it’s important to control the inflammation.”

Contraindicated in pregnancy are oral psoralen, methotrexate, and acitretin, the latter of which should be avoided for several years before pregnancy and “therefore shouldn’t be used in a woman of childbearing age,” said Dr. Murase. Methotrexate, said Dr. Sammaritano, should generally be stopped 1-3 months prior to conception.

For psoriasis, the therapy that’s “classically considered the safest in pregnancy is UVB light therapy, specifically the 300-nm wavelength of light, which works really well as an anti-inflammatory,” Dr. Murase said. Because of the potential for maternal folate degradation with phototherapy and the long-known association of folate deficiency with neural tube defects, women of childbearing age who are receiving light therapy should take daily folic acid supplementation. (She prescribes a daily prenatal vitamin containing at least 1 mg of folic acid for women who are utilizing light therapy.)

Many topical agents can be used during pregnancy, Dr. Murase said. Topical corticosteroids, she noted, have the most safety-affirming data of any topical medication.

Regarding oral therapies, Dr. Murase recommends against the use of apremilast (Otezla) for her patients. “It’s not contraindicated, but the animal studies don’t look promising, so I don’t use that one in women of childbearing age just in case. There’s just very little data to support the safety of this medication [in pregnancy].”

There are no therapeutic guidelines in the United States for guiding the management of psoriasis in women who are considering pregnancy. In 2012, the medical board of the National Psoriasis Foundation published a review of treatment options for psoriasis in pregnant or lactating women, the “closest thing to guidelines that we’ve had,” said Dr. Murase. (Now almost a decade old, the review addresses TNF inhibitors but does not cover the anti-interleukin agents more recently approved for moderate to severe psoriasis and PsA.)

For treating PsA, rheumatologists now have the American College of Rheumatology’s first guideline for the management of reproductive health in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases to reference. The 2020 guideline does not address PsA specifically, but its section on pregnancy and lactation includes recommendations on biologic and other therapies used to treat the disease.

Guidelines aside, physician-patient discussions over drug safety have the potential to be much more meaningful now that drug labels offer clinical summaries, data, and risk summaries regarding potential use in pregnancy. The labels have “more of a narrative, which is a more useful way to counsel patients and make risk-benefit decisions” than the former system of five-letter categories, said Dr. Murase. (The changes were made per the Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule of 2015.)

MothertoBaby, a service of the nonprofit Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, also provides good evidence-based information to physicians and mothers, Dr. Sammaritano noted.

The use of biologic therapies

In a 2017 review of biologic safety for patients with psoriasis during pregnancy, Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston; Martina L. Porter, MD, currently with the department of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston; and Stephen J. Lockwood, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, concluded that an increasing body of literature suggests that biologic agents can be used during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Anti-TNF agents “should be considered over IL-12/23 and IL-17 inhibitors due to the increased availability of long-term data,” they wrote.

“In general,” said Dr. Murase, “there’s more and more data coming out from gastroenterology and rheumatology to reassure patients and prescribing physicians that the TNF-blocker class is likely safe to use in pregnancy,” particularly during the first trimester and early second trimester, when the transport of maternal antibodies across the placenta is “essentially nonexistent.” In the third trimester, the active transport of IgG antibodies increases rapidly.

If possible, said Dr. Sammaritano, who served as lead author of the ACR’s reproductive health guideline, TNF inhibitors “will be stopped prior to the third trimester to avoid [the possibility of] high drug levels in the infant at birth, which raises concern for immunosuppression in the newborn. If disease is very active, however, they can be continued throughout the pregnancy.”

The TNF inhibitor certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) has the advantage of being transported only minimally across the placenta, if at all, she and Dr. Murase both explained. “To be actively carried across, antibodies need what’s called an Fc region for the placenta to grab onto,” Dr. Murase said. Certolizumab – a pegylated anti–binding fragment antibody – lacks this Fc region.

Two recent studies – CRIB and a UCB Pharma safety database analysis – showed “essentially no medication crossing – there were barely detectable levels,” Dr. Murase said. Certolizumab’s label contains this information and other clinical trial data as well as findings from safety database analyses/surveillance registries.

“Before we had much data for the biologics, I’d advise transitioning patients to light therapy from their biologics and a lot of times their psoriasis would improve, but it was more of a dance,” she said. “Now we tend to look at [certolizumab] when they’re of childbearing age and keep them on the treatment. I know that the baby is not being immunosuppressed.”

Consideration of the use of certolizumab when treatment with biologic agents is required throughout the pregnancy is a recommendation included in Dr. Kimball’s 2017 review.

As newer anti-interleukin agents – the IL-12/23 and IL-17 inhibitors – play a growing role in the treatment of psoriasis and PsA, questions loom about their safety profile. Dr. Murase and Dr. Sammaritano are waiting for more data. “In general,” Dr. Sammaritano said, “we recommend stopping them at the time pregnancy is detected, based on a lack of data at this time.”

Small-molecule drugs are also less well studied, she noted. “Because of their low molecular weight, we anticipate they will easily cross the placenta, so we recommend avoiding use during pregnancy until more information is available.”

Postpartum care

The good news, both experts say, is that the vast majority of medications, including biologics, are safe to use during breastfeeding. Methotrexate should be avoided, Dr. Sammaritano pointed out, and the impact of novel small-molecule therapies on breast milk has not been studied.

In her 2019 review of psoriasis in women, Dr. Murase and coauthors wrote that too many dermatologists believe that breastfeeding women should either not be on biologics or are uncertain about biologic use during breastfeeding. However, “biologics are considered compatible for use while breastfeeding due to their large molecular size and the proteolytic environment in the neonatal gastrointestinal tract,” they added.

Counseling and support for breastfeeding is especially important for women with psoriasis, Dr. Murase emphasized. “Breastfeeding is very traumatizing to the skin, and psoriasis can form in skin that’s injured. I have my patients set up an office visit very soon after the pregnancy to make sure they’re doing alright with their breastfeeding and that they’re coating their nipple area with some type of moisturizer and keeping the health of their nipples in good shape.”

Timely reviews of therapy and adjustments are also a priority, she said. “We need to prepare for 6 weeks post partum” when psoriasis will often flare without treatment.

Dr. Murase disclosed that she is a consultant for Dermira, UCB Pharma, Sanofi, Ferndale, and Regeneron. She is also coeditor in chief of the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology. Dr. Sammaritano reported that she has no disclosures relating to the treatment of PsA.

With an average age of diagnosis of 28 years, and one of two incidence peaks occurring at 15-30 years, psoriasis affects many women in the midst of their reproductive years. The prospect of pregnancy – or the reality of a surprise pregnancy – drives questions about heritability of the disease in offspring, the impact of the disease on pregnancy outcomes and breastfeeding, and how to best balance risks of treatments with risks of uncontrolled psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

shironosov/Getty Images

While answers to these questions are not always clear, discussions about pregnancy and psoriasis management “shouldn’t be scary,” said Jenny E. Murase, MD, a dermatologist who speaks and writes widely about her research and experience with psoriasis and pregnancy. “We have access to information and data and educational resources to [work with] and reassure our patients – we just need to use it. Right now, there’s unnecessary suffering [with some patients unnecessarily stopping all treatment].”

Much has been learned in the past 2 decades about the course of psoriasis in pregnancy, and pregnancy outcomes data on the safety of biologics during pregnancy are increasingly emerging – particularly for tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors.

Ideally, since half of all pregnancies are unplanned, the implications of therapeutic options should be discussed with all women with psoriasis who are of reproductive age, whether they are sexually active or not. “The onus is on us to make sure that we’re considering the possibility [that our patient] could become pregnant without consulting us first,” said Dr. Murase, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of medical consultative dermatology for the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group in Mountain View, Calif.

Lisa R. Sammaritano, MD, associate professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine and a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery, both in New York, urges similar attention for PsA. “Pregnancy is best planned while patients have quiescent disease on pregnancy-compatible medications,” she said. “We encourage [more] rheumatologists to be actively involved in pregnancy planning [in order] to guide therapy.”

The impact of estrogen

Dr. Murase was inspired to study psoriasis and pregnancy in part by a patient she met as a medical student. “She had severe psoriasis covering her body, and she said that the only times her psoriasis cleared was during her three pregnancies,” Dr. Murase recalled. “I wondered: What about the pregnancies resulted in such a substantial reduction of her psoriasis?”

She subsequently led a study, published in 2005, of 47 pregnant and 27 nonpregnant patients with psoriasis. More than half of the patients – 55% – reported improvements in their psoriasis during pregnancy, 21% reported no change, and 23% reported worsening. Among the 16 patients who had 10% or greater psoriatic body surface area (BSA) involvement and reported improvements, lesions decreased by 84%.

In the postpartum period, only 9% reported improvement, 26% reported no change, and 65% reported worsening. The increased BSA values observed 6 weeks postpartum did not exceed those of the first trimester, suggesting a return to the patients’ baseline status.

Earlier and smaller retrospective studies had also shown that approximately half of patients improve during pregnancy, and it was believed that progesterone was most likely responsible for this improvement. Dr. Murase’s study moved the needle in that it examined BSA in pregnancy and the postpartum period. It also turned the spotlight on estrogen: Patients who had higher levels of improvement also had higher levels of estradiol, estrone, and the ratio of estrogen to progesterone. However, there was no correlation between psoriatic change and levels of progesterone.

To promote fetal survival, pregnancy triggers a shift from Th1 cell–mediated immunity – and Th17 immunity – to Th2 immunity. While there’s no proof of a causative effect, increased estrogen appears to play a role in this shift and in the reduced production of Th1 and Th17 cytokines. Psoriasis is believed to be primarily a Th17-mediated disease, with some Th1 involvement, so this down-regulation can result in improved disease status, Dr. Murase said. (A host of other autoimmune diseases categorized as Th1 mediated similarly tend to improve during pregnancy, she added.)

Information on the effect of pregnancy on PsA is “conflicting,” Dr. Sammaritano said. “Some [of a limited number of studies] suggest a beneficial effect as is generally seen for rheumatoid arthritis. Others, however, have found an increased risk of disease activity during pregnancy ... It may be that psoriatic arthritis can be quite variable from patient to patient in its clinical presentation.”

At least one study, Dr. Sammaritano added, “has shown that the arthritis in pregnancy patients with PsA did not improve, compared to control nonpregnant patients, while the psoriasis rash did improve.”

The mixed findings don’t surprise Dr. Murase. “It harder to quantify joint disease in general,” she said. “And during pregnancy, physiologic changes relating to the pregnancy itself can cause discomfort – your joints ache. The numbers [of improved] cases aren’t as high with PsA, but it’s a more complex question.”

In the postpartum period, however, research findings “all suggest an increased risk of flare” of PsA, Dr. Sammaritano said, just as with psoriasis.
 

Assessing risk of treatment

Understanding the immunologic effects of pregnancy on psoriasis and PsA – and appreciating the concept of a hormonal component – is an important part of treatment decision making. So is understanding pregnancy outcomes data.

Researchers have looked at a host of pregnancy outcomes – including congenital malformations, preterm birth, spontaneous abortion, low birth weight, macrosomia, and gestational diabetes and hypertension – in women with psoriasis or psoriasis/PsA, compared with control groups. Some studies have suggested a link between disease activity and pregnancy complications or adverse pregnancy outcomes, “just as a result of having moderate to severe disease,” while others have found no evidence of increased risk, Dr. Murase said.

“It’s a bit unclear and a difficult question to answer; it depends on what study you look at and what data you believe. It would be nice to have some clarity, but basically the jury is still out,” said Dr. Murase, who, with coauthors Alice B. Gottlieb, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and Caitriona Ryan, MD, of the Blackrock Clinic and Charles Institute of Dermatology, University College Dublin, discussed the pregnancy outcomes data in a recently published review of psoriasis in women.

“In my opinion, because we have therapies that are so low risk and well tolerated, it’s better to make sure that the inflammatory cascade and inflammation created by psoriasis is under control,” she said. “So whether or not the pregnancy itself causes the patient to go into remission, or whether you have to use therapy to help the patient stay in remission, it’s important to control the inflammation.”

Contraindicated in pregnancy are oral psoralen, methotrexate, and acitretin, the latter of which should be avoided for several years before pregnancy and “therefore shouldn’t be used in a woman of childbearing age,” said Dr. Murase. Methotrexate, said Dr. Sammaritano, should generally be stopped 1-3 months prior to conception.

For psoriasis, the therapy that’s “classically considered the safest in pregnancy is UVB light therapy, specifically the 300-nm wavelength of light, which works really well as an anti-inflammatory,” Dr. Murase said. Because of the potential for maternal folate degradation with phototherapy and the long-known association of folate deficiency with neural tube defects, women of childbearing age who are receiving light therapy should take daily folic acid supplementation. (She prescribes a daily prenatal vitamin containing at least 1 mg of folic acid for women who are utilizing light therapy.)

Many topical agents can be used during pregnancy, Dr. Murase said. Topical corticosteroids, she noted, have the most safety-affirming data of any topical medication.

Regarding oral therapies, Dr. Murase recommends against the use of apremilast (Otezla) for her patients. “It’s not contraindicated, but the animal studies don’t look promising, so I don’t use that one in women of childbearing age just in case. There’s just very little data to support the safety of this medication [in pregnancy].”

There are no therapeutic guidelines in the United States for guiding the management of psoriasis in women who are considering pregnancy. In 2012, the medical board of the National Psoriasis Foundation published a review of treatment options for psoriasis in pregnant or lactating women, the “closest thing to guidelines that we’ve had,” said Dr. Murase. (Now almost a decade old, the review addresses TNF inhibitors but does not cover the anti-interleukin agents more recently approved for moderate to severe psoriasis and PsA.)

For treating PsA, rheumatologists now have the American College of Rheumatology’s first guideline for the management of reproductive health in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases to reference. The 2020 guideline does not address PsA specifically, but its section on pregnancy and lactation includes recommendations on biologic and other therapies used to treat the disease.

Guidelines aside, physician-patient discussions over drug safety have the potential to be much more meaningful now that drug labels offer clinical summaries, data, and risk summaries regarding potential use in pregnancy. The labels have “more of a narrative, which is a more useful way to counsel patients and make risk-benefit decisions” than the former system of five-letter categories, said Dr. Murase. (The changes were made per the Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule of 2015.)

MothertoBaby, a service of the nonprofit Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, also provides good evidence-based information to physicians and mothers, Dr. Sammaritano noted.

The use of biologic therapies

In a 2017 review of biologic safety for patients with psoriasis during pregnancy, Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston; Martina L. Porter, MD, currently with the department of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston; and Stephen J. Lockwood, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, concluded that an increasing body of literature suggests that biologic agents can be used during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Anti-TNF agents “should be considered over IL-12/23 and IL-17 inhibitors due to the increased availability of long-term data,” they wrote.

“In general,” said Dr. Murase, “there’s more and more data coming out from gastroenterology and rheumatology to reassure patients and prescribing physicians that the TNF-blocker class is likely safe to use in pregnancy,” particularly during the first trimester and early second trimester, when the transport of maternal antibodies across the placenta is “essentially nonexistent.” In the third trimester, the active transport of IgG antibodies increases rapidly.

If possible, said Dr. Sammaritano, who served as lead author of the ACR’s reproductive health guideline, TNF inhibitors “will be stopped prior to the third trimester to avoid [the possibility of] high drug levels in the infant at birth, which raises concern for immunosuppression in the newborn. If disease is very active, however, they can be continued throughout the pregnancy.”

The TNF inhibitor certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) has the advantage of being transported only minimally across the placenta, if at all, she and Dr. Murase both explained. “To be actively carried across, antibodies need what’s called an Fc region for the placenta to grab onto,” Dr. Murase said. Certolizumab – a pegylated anti–binding fragment antibody – lacks this Fc region.

Two recent studies – CRIB and a UCB Pharma safety database analysis – showed “essentially no medication crossing – there were barely detectable levels,” Dr. Murase said. Certolizumab’s label contains this information and other clinical trial data as well as findings from safety database analyses/surveillance registries.

“Before we had much data for the biologics, I’d advise transitioning patients to light therapy from their biologics and a lot of times their psoriasis would improve, but it was more of a dance,” she said. “Now we tend to look at [certolizumab] when they’re of childbearing age and keep them on the treatment. I know that the baby is not being immunosuppressed.”

Consideration of the use of certolizumab when treatment with biologic agents is required throughout the pregnancy is a recommendation included in Dr. Kimball’s 2017 review.

As newer anti-interleukin agents – the IL-12/23 and IL-17 inhibitors – play a growing role in the treatment of psoriasis and PsA, questions loom about their safety profile. Dr. Murase and Dr. Sammaritano are waiting for more data. “In general,” Dr. Sammaritano said, “we recommend stopping them at the time pregnancy is detected, based on a lack of data at this time.”

Small-molecule drugs are also less well studied, she noted. “Because of their low molecular weight, we anticipate they will easily cross the placenta, so we recommend avoiding use during pregnancy until more information is available.”

Postpartum care

The good news, both experts say, is that the vast majority of medications, including biologics, are safe to use during breastfeeding. Methotrexate should be avoided, Dr. Sammaritano pointed out, and the impact of novel small-molecule therapies on breast milk has not been studied.

In her 2019 review of psoriasis in women, Dr. Murase and coauthors wrote that too many dermatologists believe that breastfeeding women should either not be on biologics or are uncertain about biologic use during breastfeeding. However, “biologics are considered compatible for use while breastfeeding due to their large molecular size and the proteolytic environment in the neonatal gastrointestinal tract,” they added.

Counseling and support for breastfeeding is especially important for women with psoriasis, Dr. Murase emphasized. “Breastfeeding is very traumatizing to the skin, and psoriasis can form in skin that’s injured. I have my patients set up an office visit very soon after the pregnancy to make sure they’re doing alright with their breastfeeding and that they’re coating their nipple area with some type of moisturizer and keeping the health of their nipples in good shape.”

Timely reviews of therapy and adjustments are also a priority, she said. “We need to prepare for 6 weeks post partum” when psoriasis will often flare without treatment.

Dr. Murase disclosed that she is a consultant for Dermira, UCB Pharma, Sanofi, Ferndale, and Regeneron. She is also coeditor in chief of the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology. Dr. Sammaritano reported that she has no disclosures relating to the treatment of PsA.

The number of genes in humans seems inadequate to account for the diversity seen in people. While maternal and paternal factors do play a role in the development of offspring, increased attention is being paid to the forces that express these genes and the impact they have on the health of a person, including development of psychiatric conditions, according to Dolores Malaspina, MD.

Epigenetics, or changes that occur in a fetal phenotype that do not involve changes to the genotype, involve factors such as DNA methylation to control gene expression, histone modification or the wrapping of genes, or the silencing and activation of certain genes with noncoding RNA-associated factors, said Dr. Malaspina of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

When this occurs during pregnancy, “the fetus does not simply develop from a genetic blueprint of the genes from its father and mother. Instead, signals are received throughout the pregnancy as to the health of the mother and signals about the environment,” she said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

There is an evolutionary advantage to this so-called survival phenotype. “If, during the pregnancy, there’s a deficit of available nutrition, that may be a signal to the fetus that food will be scarce. In the setting of food scarcity, certain physiological adaptations during development can make the fetus more likely to survive to adulthood,” Dr. Malaspina said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education. But a fetus programmed to adapt to scarcity of food may also develop cardiovascular disease, metabolic disease, or mortality later in life if the prediction of scarce nutrition proved incorrect.

This approach to thinking about the developmental origins of health and disease, which examines how prenatal and perinatal exposure to environmental factors affect disease in adulthood, has also found a link between some exposures and psychiatric disorders. The most famous example, the Dutch Hunger Winter Families Study, found an increased risk of schizophrenia among children born during the height of the famine (Int J Epidemiol. 2007 Dec;36[6]:1196-204). During the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 (the Six-Day War), which took place in June, the fetuses of mothers who were pregnant during that month had a higher risk of schizophrenia if the fetus was in the second month (relative risk, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.7) or third month (RR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.2) of fetal life during June 1967, Dr. Malaspina and associates wrote (BMC Psychiatry. 2008 Aug 21;8:71).

“The key aspect is the ascertainment of individuals during a circumscribed period, the assessment and then the longitudinal follow-up,” she said. “Obviously, these are not easy studies to do, but enough of them have been done such that for the last decade at least, the general population should be aware of the developmental origins of health and disease.”

Maternal depression is another psychiatric condition that can serve as a prenatal exposure to adversity. A recent review found that children of women with untreated depression were 56% more likely to be born preterm and 96% more likely to have a low birth weight (Pediatr Res. 2019 Jan;85[2]:134-45). “Preterm birth and early birth along with low birth weight, these have ramifying effects throughout life, not only on neonatal and infant mortality, but on developmental disorders and lifetime morbidity,” she said. “These effects of maternal depression withstand all sorts of accounting for other correlated exposures, including maternal age and her medical complications or substance use.”

Maternal stress and depression can also harm neurocognitive development and effective functioning of the children, Dr. Malaspina noted. “The modulation of mood and affect can affect temperament and affect mental health. Studies exist linking maternal depression to autism, attention-deficit disorder, developmental delay, behavioral problems, sleep problems, externalizing behavior and depression, showing a very large effect of maternal depression on offspring well-being.”

To complicate matters, at least 15% of women will experience major depression during pregnancy, but of these, major depression is not being addressed in about half. Nonpharmacologic interventions can include cognitive-behavioral therapy and relaxation practices, but medication should be considered as well. “There’s an ongoing debate about whether antidepressant medications are harmful for the offspring,” she said. However, reviews conducted by Dr. Malaspina’s group have found low evidence of serious harm.

“My summary would be the depression itself holds much more evidence for disrupting offspring health and development than medications,” Dr. Malaspina said. “Most studies find no adverse birth effects when they properly controlled accounting for maternal age and the other conditions and other medications.”

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Malaspina reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

The number of genes in humans seems inadequate to account for the diversity seen in people. While maternal and paternal factors do play a role in the development of offspring, increased attention is being paid to the forces that express these genes and the impact they have on the health of a person, including development of psychiatric conditions, according to Dolores Malaspina, MD.

Epigenetics, or changes that occur in a fetal phenotype that do not involve changes to the genotype, involve factors such as DNA methylation to control gene expression, histone modification or the wrapping of genes, or the silencing and activation of certain genes with noncoding RNA-associated factors, said Dr. Malaspina of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

When this occurs during pregnancy, “the fetus does not simply develop from a genetic blueprint of the genes from its father and mother. Instead, signals are received throughout the pregnancy as to the health of the mother and signals about the environment,” she said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

There is an evolutionary advantage to this so-called survival phenotype. “If, during the pregnancy, there’s a deficit of available nutrition, that may be a signal to the fetus that food will be scarce. In the setting of food scarcity, certain physiological adaptations during development can make the fetus more likely to survive to adulthood,” Dr. Malaspina said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education. But a fetus programmed to adapt to scarcity of food may also develop cardiovascular disease, metabolic disease, or mortality later in life if the prediction of scarce nutrition proved incorrect.

This approach to thinking about the developmental origins of health and disease, which examines how prenatal and perinatal exposure to environmental factors affect disease in adulthood, has also found a link between some exposures and psychiatric disorders. The most famous example, the Dutch Hunger Winter Families Study, found an increased risk of schizophrenia among children born during the height of the famine (Int J Epidemiol. 2007 Dec;36[6]:1196-204). During the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 (the Six-Day War), which took place in June, the fetuses of mothers who were pregnant during that month had a higher risk of schizophrenia if the fetus was in the second month (relative risk, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.7) or third month (RR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.2) of fetal life during June 1967, Dr. Malaspina and associates wrote (BMC Psychiatry. 2008 Aug 21;8:71).

“The key aspect is the ascertainment of individuals during a circumscribed period, the assessment and then the longitudinal follow-up,” she said. “Obviously, these are not easy studies to do, but enough of them have been done such that for the last decade at least, the general population should be aware of the developmental origins of health and disease.”

Maternal depression is another psychiatric condition that can serve as a prenatal exposure to adversity. A recent review found that children of women with untreated depression were 56% more likely to be born preterm and 96% more likely to have a low birth weight (Pediatr Res. 2019 Jan;85[2]:134-45). “Preterm birth and early birth along with low birth weight, these have ramifying effects throughout life, not only on neonatal and infant mortality, but on developmental disorders and lifetime morbidity,” she said. “These effects of maternal depression withstand all sorts of accounting for other correlated exposures, including maternal age and her medical complications or substance use.”

Maternal stress and depression can also harm neurocognitive development and effective functioning of the children, Dr. Malaspina noted. “The modulation of mood and affect can affect temperament and affect mental health. Studies exist linking maternal depression to autism, attention-deficit disorder, developmental delay, behavioral problems, sleep problems, externalizing behavior and depression, showing a very large effect of maternal depression on offspring well-being.”

To complicate matters, at least 15% of women will experience major depression during pregnancy, but of these, major depression is not being addressed in about half. Nonpharmacologic interventions can include cognitive-behavioral therapy and relaxation practices, but medication should be considered as well. “There’s an ongoing debate about whether antidepressant medications are harmful for the offspring,” she said. However, reviews conducted by Dr. Malaspina’s group have found low evidence of serious harm.

“My summary would be the depression itself holds much more evidence for disrupting offspring health and development than medications,” Dr. Malaspina said. “Most studies find no adverse birth effects when they properly controlled accounting for maternal age and the other conditions and other medications.”

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Malaspina reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

The number of genes in humans seems inadequate to account for the diversity seen in people. While maternal and paternal factors do play a role in the development of offspring, increased attention is being paid to the forces that express these genes and the impact they have on the health of a person, including development of psychiatric conditions, according to Dolores Malaspina, MD.

Epigenetics, or changes that occur in a fetal phenotype that do not involve changes to the genotype, involve factors such as DNA methylation to control gene expression, histone modification or the wrapping of genes, or the silencing and activation of certain genes with noncoding RNA-associated factors, said Dr. Malaspina of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

When this occurs during pregnancy, “the fetus does not simply develop from a genetic blueprint of the genes from its father and mother. Instead, signals are received throughout the pregnancy as to the health of the mother and signals about the environment,” she said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

There is an evolutionary advantage to this so-called survival phenotype. “If, during the pregnancy, there’s a deficit of available nutrition, that may be a signal to the fetus that food will be scarce. In the setting of food scarcity, certain physiological adaptations during development can make the fetus more likely to survive to adulthood,” Dr. Malaspina said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education. But a fetus programmed to adapt to scarcity of food may also develop cardiovascular disease, metabolic disease, or mortality later in life if the prediction of scarce nutrition proved incorrect.

This approach to thinking about the developmental origins of health and disease, which examines how prenatal and perinatal exposure to environmental factors affect disease in adulthood, has also found a link between some exposures and psychiatric disorders. The most famous example, the Dutch Hunger Winter Families Study, found an increased risk of schizophrenia among children born during the height of the famine (Int J Epidemiol. 2007 Dec;36[6]:1196-204). During the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 (the Six-Day War), which took place in June, the fetuses of mothers who were pregnant during that month had a higher risk of schizophrenia if the fetus was in the second month (relative risk, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.7) or third month (RR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.2) of fetal life during June 1967, Dr. Malaspina and associates wrote (BMC Psychiatry. 2008 Aug 21;8:71).

“The key aspect is the ascertainment of individuals during a circumscribed period, the assessment and then the longitudinal follow-up,” she said. “Obviously, these are not easy studies to do, but enough of them have been done such that for the last decade at least, the general population should be aware of the developmental origins of health and disease.”

Maternal depression is another psychiatric condition that can serve as a prenatal exposure to adversity. A recent review found that children of women with untreated depression were 56% more likely to be born preterm and 96% more likely to have a low birth weight (Pediatr Res. 2019 Jan;85[2]:134-45). “Preterm birth and early birth along with low birth weight, these have ramifying effects throughout life, not only on neonatal and infant mortality, but on developmental disorders and lifetime morbidity,” she said. “These effects of maternal depression withstand all sorts of accounting for other correlated exposures, including maternal age and her medical complications or substance use.”

Maternal stress and depression can also harm neurocognitive development and effective functioning of the children, Dr. Malaspina noted. “The modulation of mood and affect can affect temperament and affect mental health. Studies exist linking maternal depression to autism, attention-deficit disorder, developmental delay, behavioral problems, sleep problems, externalizing behavior and depression, showing a very large effect of maternal depression on offspring well-being.”

To complicate matters, at least 15% of women will experience major depression during pregnancy, but of these, major depression is not being addressed in about half. Nonpharmacologic interventions can include cognitive-behavioral therapy and relaxation practices, but medication should be considered as well. “There’s an ongoing debate about whether antidepressant medications are harmful for the offspring,” she said. However, reviews conducted by Dr. Malaspina’s group have found low evidence of serious harm.

“My summary would be the depression itself holds much more evidence for disrupting offspring health and development than medications,” Dr. Malaspina said. “Most studies find no adverse birth effects when they properly controlled accounting for maternal age and the other conditions and other medications.”

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Malaspina reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Breast milk is an unlikely source of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mothers to infants, according to data from case reports and breast milk samples from 18 women.

South_agency/Getty Images

“To date, SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated from breast milk, and there are no documented cases of transmission of infectious virus to the infant through breast milk,” but the potential for transmission remains a concern among women who want to breastfeed, wrote Christina Chambers, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA, the investigators identified 18 women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections (all but 1 of the women had symptomatic COVID-19 disease) and infants aged 0-19 months between March 27 and May 6, 2020. The average age of the mothers was 34 years, and 78% were non-Hispanic White. The women provided 1-12 samples of breast milk for a total of 64 samples collected before and after positive COVID-19 tests.

One sample yielded detectable RNA from SARS-CoV-2 and was collected on the day of the woman’s symptom onset. However, one sample taken 2 days prior to symptom onset and two samples collected 12 and 41 days later tested negative for viral RNA, the researchers said. In addition, no replication-competent virus was identified in the positive sample or any of the other samples.

The researchers spiked two stored milk samples collected prior to the pandemic with replication-competent SARS-CoV-2. Virus was not detected by culture in the samples after Holder pasteurization, but was detected by culture in nonpasteurized aliquots of the same samples.

“These data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 RNA does not represent replication-competent virus and that breast milk may not be a source of infection for the infant,” Dr. Chambers and associates said.

The results were limited by several factors including the small sample size and potential for selection bias, as well as the use of self-reports of positive tests and self-collection of breast milk, the researchers noted. However, the findings are reassuring in light of the known benefits of breastfeeding and the use of milk banks.

“This research is important because the pandemic is ongoing and has far-reaching consequences: as the authors indicate, the potential for viral transmission through breast milk remains a critical question for women infected with SARS-CoV-2 who wish to breastfeed,” Janet R. Hardy, PhD, MPH, MSc, a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology, said in an interview.

“This virus has everyone on a rapid learning track, and all information that helps build evidence to support women’s decision-making in the care of their children is valuable,” she said. “These findings suggest that breast milk may not be a source of SARS-CoV-2 infection for the infant. They provide some reassurance given the recognized benefits of breastfeeding and human milk.”

However, “This study is very specific to breast milk,” she emphasized. “In advising women infected with SARS-CoV-2, clinicians may want to include a discussion of protection methods to prevent maternal transmission of the virus through respiratory droplets.”

Although the data are preliminary, “the investigators established and validated an RT-PCR [reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction] assay and developed tissue culture methods for replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 in breast milk, both valuable tools for further studies. Next steps will include controlled studies of greater sample size with independent verification of RT-PCR positivity,” said Dr. Hardy, a consultant to Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, Conn.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Institute of Mental Health. Medela Corporation provided milk sample collection materials. The Family Larsson-Rosenquist Foundation provided an unrestricted COVID19 emergency gift fund. The Mothers’ Milk Bank at Austin paid for shipping costs.

SOURCE: Chambers C et al. JAMA. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.15580.

Breast milk is an unlikely source of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mothers to infants, according to data from case reports and breast milk samples from 18 women.

South_agency/Getty Images

“To date, SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated from breast milk, and there are no documented cases of transmission of infectious virus to the infant through breast milk,” but the potential for transmission remains a concern among women who want to breastfeed, wrote Christina Chambers, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA, the investigators identified 18 women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections (all but 1 of the women had symptomatic COVID-19 disease) and infants aged 0-19 months between March 27 and May 6, 2020. The average age of the mothers was 34 years, and 78% were non-Hispanic White. The women provided 1-12 samples of breast milk for a total of 64 samples collected before and after positive COVID-19 tests.

One sample yielded detectable RNA from SARS-CoV-2 and was collected on the day of the woman’s symptom onset. However, one sample taken 2 days prior to symptom onset and two samples collected 12 and 41 days later tested negative for viral RNA, the researchers said. In addition, no replication-competent virus was identified in the positive sample or any of the other samples.

The researchers spiked two stored milk samples collected prior to the pandemic with replication-competent SARS-CoV-2. Virus was not detected by culture in the samples after Holder pasteurization, but was detected by culture in nonpasteurized aliquots of the same samples.

“These data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 RNA does not represent replication-competent virus and that breast milk may not be a source of infection for the infant,” Dr. Chambers and associates said.

The results were limited by several factors including the small sample size and potential for selection bias, as well as the use of self-reports of positive tests and self-collection of breast milk, the researchers noted. However, the findings are reassuring in light of the known benefits of breastfeeding and the use of milk banks.

“This research is important because the pandemic is ongoing and has far-reaching consequences: as the authors indicate, the potential for viral transmission through breast milk remains a critical question for women infected with SARS-CoV-2 who wish to breastfeed,” Janet R. Hardy, PhD, MPH, MSc, a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology, said in an interview.

“This virus has everyone on a rapid learning track, and all information that helps build evidence to support women’s decision-making in the care of their children is valuable,” she said. “These findings suggest that breast milk may not be a source of SARS-CoV-2 infection for the infant. They provide some reassurance given the recognized benefits of breastfeeding and human milk.”

However, “This study is very specific to breast milk,” she emphasized. “In advising women infected with SARS-CoV-2, clinicians may want to include a discussion of protection methods to prevent maternal transmission of the virus through respiratory droplets.”

Although the data are preliminary, “the investigators established and validated an RT-PCR [reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction] assay and developed tissue culture methods for replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 in breast milk, both valuable tools for further studies. Next steps will include controlled studies of greater sample size with independent verification of RT-PCR positivity,” said Dr. Hardy, a consultant to Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, Conn.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Institute of Mental Health. Medela Corporation provided milk sample collection materials. The Family Larsson-Rosenquist Foundation provided an unrestricted COVID19 emergency gift fund. The Mothers’ Milk Bank at Austin paid for shipping costs.

SOURCE: Chambers C et al. JAMA. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.15580.

Breast milk is an unlikely source of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mothers to infants, according to data from case reports and breast milk samples from 18 women.

South_agency/Getty Images

“To date, SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated from breast milk, and there are no documented cases of transmission of infectious virus to the infant through breast milk,” but the potential for transmission remains a concern among women who want to breastfeed, wrote Christina Chambers, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

In a research letter published in JAMA, the investigators identified 18 women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections (all but 1 of the women had symptomatic COVID-19 disease) and infants aged 0-19 months between March 27 and May 6, 2020. The average age of the mothers was 34 years, and 78% were non-Hispanic White. The women provided 1-12 samples of breast milk for a total of 64 samples collected before and after positive COVID-19 tests.

One sample yielded detectable RNA from SARS-CoV-2 and was collected on the day of the woman’s symptom onset. However, one sample taken 2 days prior to symptom onset and two samples collected 12 and 41 days later tested negative for viral RNA, the researchers said. In addition, no replication-competent virus was identified in the positive sample or any of the other samples.

The researchers spiked two stored milk samples collected prior to the pandemic with replication-competent SARS-CoV-2. Virus was not detected by culture in the samples after Holder pasteurization, but was detected by culture in nonpasteurized aliquots of the same samples.

“These data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 RNA does not represent replication-competent virus and that breast milk may not be a source of infection for the infant,” Dr. Chambers and associates said.

The results were limited by several factors including the small sample size and potential for selection bias, as well as the use of self-reports of positive tests and self-collection of breast milk, the researchers noted. However, the findings are reassuring in light of the known benefits of breastfeeding and the use of milk banks.

“This research is important because the pandemic is ongoing and has far-reaching consequences: as the authors indicate, the potential for viral transmission through breast milk remains a critical question for women infected with SARS-CoV-2 who wish to breastfeed,” Janet R. Hardy, PhD, MPH, MSc, a consultant on global maternal-child health and pharmacoepidemiology, said in an interview.

“This virus has everyone on a rapid learning track, and all information that helps build evidence to support women’s decision-making in the care of their children is valuable,” she said. “These findings suggest that breast milk may not be a source of SARS-CoV-2 infection for the infant. They provide some reassurance given the recognized benefits of breastfeeding and human milk.”

However, “This study is very specific to breast milk,” she emphasized. “In advising women infected with SARS-CoV-2, clinicians may want to include a discussion of protection methods to prevent maternal transmission of the virus through respiratory droplets.”

Although the data are preliminary, “the investigators established and validated an RT-PCR [reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction] assay and developed tissue culture methods for replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 in breast milk, both valuable tools for further studies. Next steps will include controlled studies of greater sample size with independent verification of RT-PCR positivity,” said Dr. Hardy, a consultant to Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, Conn.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Institute of Mental Health. Medela Corporation provided milk sample collection materials. The Family Larsson-Rosenquist Foundation provided an unrestricted COVID19 emergency gift fund. The Mothers’ Milk Bank at Austin paid for shipping costs.

SOURCE: Chambers C et al. JAMA. 2020 Aug 19. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.15580.

As in its typical fashion, the question sprang out from a young Black patient after some meandering conversation during preconception counseling: “How do y’all prevent Black maternal mortality?” At the beginning of my career, I used to think preparing a patient for pregnancy involved recommending prenatal vitamins and rubella immunity screening. Now, having worked in a society with substantial racial health disparities for 14 years, there is greater awareness that pregnancy can be a matter of life or death that disproportionately affects people of color.

SDI Productions/E+

For Black patients in the United States, the maternal mortality ratio is almost four times higher than the ratio for White patients, 42 deaths versus 13 deaths per 100,000 live births, respectively.¹ Georgia has the highest maternal mortality ratio in the United States at 67 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. However, if you are a Black woman in Georgia, your chance of dying of pregnancy-related causes is 2.7 times that of a non-Hispanic White woman living in Georgia.²

How do we answer this patient’s question in a way that addresses the systemic racism that underlies these disparities? We start by actively listening. Black patients often are not taken seriously, even when they are wealthy, have attained high levels of education, or are famous. Serena Williams, a Black woman and one of the most talented tennis players of all time, was ignored when complaining that she felt a blood clot had returned in her lungs post partum. As a recognition of this crisis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a new campaign to improve recognition of the warning signs of problems in pregnancy called the HEAR HER campaign. This issue is a pervasive problem in our lives that runs across the spectrum of Black experience. I have had Black friends, patients, and colleagues who have been ignored when complaining about labor pain, workplace discrimination, and even when trying to advocate for their patients. We need to uplift Black voices so they can be heard and support the initiatives and interventions they are asking for.

We practice standardized responses to emergencies and to health conditions. We use drills to practice our responses to life-threatening emergencies such as STAT cesarean delivery, shoulder dystocia, obstetrical hemorrhage, or treatment of preeclampsia and eclampsia. The Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health has organized evidence-driven protocols called AIM bundles to reduce preventable maternal morbidity and mortality when implemented. Standardization is an important component of equitable treatment and reduction of disparities. The concept has been used across industries to reduce error and bias. The Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health bundles even include a section on Reduction of Peripartum and Ethnic Disparities.

We admit that bias exists and that we need training to recognize and eliminate it. According to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America about racial bias in pain assessment more than 20% of White residents and medical students surveyed believed that Black people had less sensitive nerve endings than Whites.³ Studies show that this stereotype leads to inappropriate pain management in Black patients, a chief concern when considering how patients are treated on labor and delivery or after surgery.⁴ Additionally, unconscious bias can be addressed by hiring a diverse workforce at all levels. Familiarity with a diverse group can help us learn from one another in our day-to-day lives.

We need to offer the same high-quality preconception counseling to all of our patients. A patient’s perceived race or ethnicity is a poor indicator of their actual health needs. The amount of melanin in our skin is highly variable but our genetics are remarkably similar, therefore our health concerns are similar. All patients deserve a focus on prevention. Folic acid supplements in the form of prenatal vitamins should be recommended. Routine vaccinations and rubella immunity checks should be offered. Basic carrier screening for diseases of hemoglobin (which includes sickle cell trait), fragile X, spinomuscular atrophy, and cystic fibrosis should be offered. Finally, an emphasis on safety, mental health, and daily low-level exercise (i.e., walking) should be promoted to help prevent illness and injury in this age group. The leading causes of death for people of reproductive age are accidents, suicide, homicide, and heart disease – all preventable.

We treat the social determinants of health, not just the patient in front of us. When “race” is a risk factor for disease, it’s usually racism that’s the problem. As stated earlier, how much melanin is in our skin has little to do with our genetics – if we removed our skin, we’d have similar life expectancies and die of similar things. However, it has everything to do with how we navigate our society and access health care. The stress associated with being Black in America is the likely cause of preterm birth rates – leading to infant illness and death – and maternal mortality being higher in Black patients. This is referred to as “weathering” – the cumulative effects of stress as we age. It explains why Black women are more likely to die in pregnancy despite higher levels of education and increasing age – factors that are protective for other groups. Improving access to quality education, reforming the criminal justice system, affordable housing and child care, living wages, family planning, and universal basic health care exemplify the intersectionality of some of our greatest societal challenges. Addressing these root causes will reduce weathering and ultimately, save Black lives.

We strive to train more “underrepresented minorities” in medicine. According to the American Association of Medical Colleges, only 7.3% of medical students in 2019-2020 identified as Black or African American. This is way below their representation of 13% of the U.S. population. I’m proud that my division and department as a whole have hired and promoted diverse faculty with 30% of my generalist ob.gyn. colleagues being people of color. This shows that we have the input of diverse experiences as well as recognize the special concerns of patients of color. Underrepresented students interested in the health professions need us to do more to get their “foot in the door.” They are less likely to have connections to the field of medicine (family members, mentors), have access to prep courses or advisors, or have the finances to support the expensive application process. Reach out to your alma maters and ask how you can help mentor students at a young age and continue through adulthood, support scholarships, support unpaid internship recipients, and promote interconnectedness throughout this community.

I hope I answered my patient’s question in that moment, but I know what needs to be done is bigger that taking care of one patient. It will require small progress, by us, every single day. Until these interventions and others reshape our society, I’ll still have Black patients who say: “Don’t let me die, okay?” with a look right into my soul and a tight grip on my hand. And I’ll feel the immense weight of that trust, and squeeze the hand back.
 

Dr. Collins (she/her/hers) is assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology, generalist division, at Emory University, Atlanta. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Collins at [email protected].
 

References

1. CDC Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm.

2. Maternal Mortality Fact Sheet, 2012-2015. https://dph.georgia.gov/maternal-mortality.

3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Apr 19;113(16):4296-301.

4. Pain Med. 2012 Feb;13(2):150-74.

As in its typical fashion, the question sprang out from a young Black patient after some meandering conversation during preconception counseling: “How do y’all prevent Black maternal mortality?” At the beginning of my career, I used to think preparing a patient for pregnancy involved recommending prenatal vitamins and rubella immunity screening. Now, having worked in a society with substantial racial health disparities for 14 years, there is greater awareness that pregnancy can be a matter of life or death that disproportionately affects people of color.

SDI Productions/E+

For Black patients in the United States, the maternal mortality ratio is almost four times higher than the ratio for White patients, 42 deaths versus 13 deaths per 100,000 live births, respectively.¹ Georgia has the highest maternal mortality ratio in the United States at 67 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. However, if you are a Black woman in Georgia, your chance of dying of pregnancy-related causes is 2.7 times that of a non-Hispanic White woman living in Georgia.²

How do we answer this patient’s question in a way that addresses the systemic racism that underlies these disparities? We start by actively listening. Black patients often are not taken seriously, even when they are wealthy, have attained high levels of education, or are famous. Serena Williams, a Black woman and one of the most talented tennis players of all time, was ignored when complaining that she felt a blood clot had returned in her lungs post partum. As a recognition of this crisis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a new campaign to improve recognition of the warning signs of problems in pregnancy called the HEAR HER campaign. This issue is a pervasive problem in our lives that runs across the spectrum of Black experience. I have had Black friends, patients, and colleagues who have been ignored when complaining about labor pain, workplace discrimination, and even when trying to advocate for their patients. We need to uplift Black voices so they can be heard and support the initiatives and interventions they are asking for.

We practice standardized responses to emergencies and to health conditions. We use drills to practice our responses to life-threatening emergencies such as STAT cesarean delivery, shoulder dystocia, obstetrical hemorrhage, or treatment of preeclampsia and eclampsia. The Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health has organized evidence-driven protocols called AIM bundles to reduce preventable maternal morbidity and mortality when implemented. Standardization is an important component of equitable treatment and reduction of disparities. The concept has been used across industries to reduce error and bias. The Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health bundles even include a section on Reduction of Peripartum and Ethnic Disparities.

We admit that bias exists and that we need training to recognize and eliminate it. According to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America about racial bias in pain assessment more than 20% of White residents and medical students surveyed believed that Black people had less sensitive nerve endings than Whites.³ Studies show that this stereotype leads to inappropriate pain management in Black patients, a chief concern when considering how patients are treated on labor and delivery or after surgery.⁴ Additionally, unconscious bias can be addressed by hiring a diverse workforce at all levels. Familiarity with a diverse group can help us learn from one another in our day-to-day lives.

We need to offer the same high-quality preconception counseling to all of our patients. A patient’s perceived race or ethnicity is a poor indicator of their actual health needs. The amount of melanin in our skin is highly variable but our genetics are remarkably similar, therefore our health concerns are similar. All patients deserve a focus on prevention. Folic acid supplements in the form of prenatal vitamins should be recommended. Routine vaccinations and rubella immunity checks should be offered. Basic carrier screening for diseases of hemoglobin (which includes sickle cell trait), fragile X, spinomuscular atrophy, and cystic fibrosis should be offered. Finally, an emphasis on safety, mental health, and daily low-level exercise (i.e., walking) should be promoted to help prevent illness and injury in this age group. The leading causes of death for people of reproductive age are accidents, suicide, homicide, and heart disease – all preventable.

We treat the social determinants of health, not just the patient in front of us. When “race” is a risk factor for disease, it’s usually racism that’s the problem. As stated earlier, how much melanin is in our skin has little to do with our genetics – if we removed our skin, we’d have similar life expectancies and die of similar things. However, it has everything to do with how we navigate our society and access health care. The stress associated with being Black in America is the likely cause of preterm birth rates – leading to infant illness and death – and maternal mortality being higher in Black patients. This is referred to as “weathering” – the cumulative effects of stress as we age. It explains why Black women are more likely to die in pregnancy despite higher levels of education and increasing age – factors that are protective for other groups. Improving access to quality education, reforming the criminal justice system, affordable housing and child care, living wages, family planning, and universal basic health care exemplify the intersectionality of some of our greatest societal challenges. Addressing these root causes will reduce weathering and ultimately, save Black lives.

We strive to train more “underrepresented minorities” in medicine. According to the American Association of Medical Colleges, only 7.3% of medical students in 2019-2020 identified as Black or African American. This is way below their representation of 13% of the U.S. population. I’m proud that my division and department as a whole have hired and promoted diverse faculty with 30% of my generalist ob.gyn. colleagues being people of color. This shows that we have the input of diverse experiences as well as recognize the special concerns of patients of color. Underrepresented students interested in the health professions need us to do more to get their “foot in the door.” They are less likely to have connections to the field of medicine (family members, mentors), have access to prep courses or advisors, or have the finances to support the expensive application process. Reach out to your alma maters and ask how you can help mentor students at a young age and continue through adulthood, support scholarships, support unpaid internship recipients, and promote interconnectedness throughout this community.

I hope I answered my patient’s question in that moment, but I know what needs to be done is bigger that taking care of one patient. It will require small progress, by us, every single day. Until these interventions and others reshape our society, I’ll still have Black patients who say: “Don’t let me die, okay?” with a look right into my soul and a tight grip on my hand. And I’ll feel the immense weight of that trust, and squeeze the hand back.
 

Dr. Collins (she/her/hers) is assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology, generalist division, at Emory University, Atlanta. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Collins at [email protected].
 

References

1. CDC Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm.

2. Maternal Mortality Fact Sheet, 2012-2015. https://dph.georgia.gov/maternal-mortality.

3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Apr 19;113(16):4296-301.

4. Pain Med. 2012 Feb;13(2):150-74.

As in its typical fashion, the question sprang out from a young Black patient after some meandering conversation during preconception counseling: “How do y’all prevent Black maternal mortality?” At the beginning of my career, I used to think preparing a patient for pregnancy involved recommending prenatal vitamins and rubella immunity screening. Now, having worked in a society with substantial racial health disparities for 14 years, there is greater awareness that pregnancy can be a matter of life or death that disproportionately affects people of color.

SDI Productions/E+

For Black patients in the United States, the maternal mortality ratio is almost four times higher than the ratio for White patients, 42 deaths versus 13 deaths per 100,000 live births, respectively.¹ Georgia has the highest maternal mortality ratio in the United States at 67 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. However, if you are a Black woman in Georgia, your chance of dying of pregnancy-related causes is 2.7 times that of a non-Hispanic White woman living in Georgia.²

How do we answer this patient’s question in a way that addresses the systemic racism that underlies these disparities? We start by actively listening. Black patients often are not taken seriously, even when they are wealthy, have attained high levels of education, or are famous. Serena Williams, a Black woman and one of the most talented tennis players of all time, was ignored when complaining that she felt a blood clot had returned in her lungs post partum. As a recognition of this crisis, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a new campaign to improve recognition of the warning signs of problems in pregnancy called the HEAR HER campaign. This issue is a pervasive problem in our lives that runs across the spectrum of Black experience. I have had Black friends, patients, and colleagues who have been ignored when complaining about labor pain, workplace discrimination, and even when trying to advocate for their patients. We need to uplift Black voices so they can be heard and support the initiatives and interventions they are asking for.

We practice standardized responses to emergencies and to health conditions. We use drills to practice our responses to life-threatening emergencies such as STAT cesarean delivery, shoulder dystocia, obstetrical hemorrhage, or treatment of preeclampsia and eclampsia. The Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health has organized evidence-driven protocols called AIM bundles to reduce preventable maternal morbidity and mortality when implemented. Standardization is an important component of equitable treatment and reduction of disparities. The concept has been used across industries to reduce error and bias. The Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health bundles even include a section on Reduction of Peripartum and Ethnic Disparities.

We admit that bias exists and that we need training to recognize and eliminate it. According to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America about racial bias in pain assessment more than 20% of White residents and medical students surveyed believed that Black people had less sensitive nerve endings than Whites.³ Studies show that this stereotype leads to inappropriate pain management in Black patients, a chief concern when considering how patients are treated on labor and delivery or after surgery.⁴ Additionally, unconscious bias can be addressed by hiring a diverse workforce at all levels. Familiarity with a diverse group can help us learn from one another in our day-to-day lives.

We need to offer the same high-quality preconception counseling to all of our patients. A patient’s perceived race or ethnicity is a poor indicator of their actual health needs. The amount of melanin in our skin is highly variable but our genetics are remarkably similar, therefore our health concerns are similar. All patients deserve a focus on prevention. Folic acid supplements in the form of prenatal vitamins should be recommended. Routine vaccinations and rubella immunity checks should be offered. Basic carrier screening for diseases of hemoglobin (which includes sickle cell trait), fragile X, spinomuscular atrophy, and cystic fibrosis should be offered. Finally, an emphasis on safety, mental health, and daily low-level exercise (i.e., walking) should be promoted to help prevent illness and injury in this age group. The leading causes of death for people of reproductive age are accidents, suicide, homicide, and heart disease – all preventable.

We treat the social determinants of health, not just the patient in front of us. When “race” is a risk factor for disease, it’s usually racism that’s the problem. As stated earlier, how much melanin is in our skin has little to do with our genetics – if we removed our skin, we’d have similar life expectancies and die of similar things. However, it has everything to do with how we navigate our society and access health care. The stress associated with being Black in America is the likely cause of preterm birth rates – leading to infant illness and death – and maternal mortality being higher in Black patients. This is referred to as “weathering” – the cumulative effects of stress as we age. It explains why Black women are more likely to die in pregnancy despite higher levels of education and increasing age – factors that are protective for other groups. Improving access to quality education, reforming the criminal justice system, affordable housing and child care, living wages, family planning, and universal basic health care exemplify the intersectionality of some of our greatest societal challenges. Addressing these root causes will reduce weathering and ultimately, save Black lives.

We strive to train more “underrepresented minorities” in medicine. According to the American Association of Medical Colleges, only 7.3% of medical students in 2019-2020 identified as Black or African American. This is way below their representation of 13% of the U.S. population. I’m proud that my division and department as a whole have hired and promoted diverse faculty with 30% of my generalist ob.gyn. colleagues being people of color. This shows that we have the input of diverse experiences as well as recognize the special concerns of patients of color. Underrepresented students interested in the health professions need us to do more to get their “foot in the door.” They are less likely to have connections to the field of medicine (family members, mentors), have access to prep courses or advisors, or have the finances to support the expensive application process. Reach out to your alma maters and ask how you can help mentor students at a young age and continue through adulthood, support scholarships, support unpaid internship recipients, and promote interconnectedness throughout this community.

I hope I answered my patient’s question in that moment, but I know what needs to be done is bigger that taking care of one patient. It will require small progress, by us, every single day. Until these interventions and others reshape our society, I’ll still have Black patients who say: “Don’t let me die, okay?” with a look right into my soul and a tight grip on my hand. And I’ll feel the immense weight of that trust, and squeeze the hand back.
 

Dr. Collins (she/her/hers) is assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology, generalist division, at Emory University, Atlanta. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Collins at [email protected].
 

References

1. CDC Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/pregnancy-mortality-surveillance-system.htm.

2. Maternal Mortality Fact Sheet, 2012-2015. https://dph.georgia.gov/maternal-mortality.

3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Apr 19;113(16):4296-301.

4. Pain Med. 2012 Feb;13(2):150-74.

Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing national conversations around racial injustice, it is more important than ever that we identify and root out systemic discrimination – including in our health care system. As an ob.gyn., I’ve spent my entire career making sure that women receive the best care, and have witnessed firsthand the results of a system that provides differing levels of care based on one’s socioeconomic level, race, or ethnicity. The simple and sad reality is black and Hispanic women in this country continue to have less access to critical maternal and prenatal care.

This disparity is borne out in this country’s maternal health outcomes. For example, the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that the maternal mortality rate for black women, 37.1 deaths per 100,000 live births, is more than double the rate for white women at 14.7. In addition, the black infant mortality rate, at 11.4 per 1,000 live births, is also more than double the white infant mortality rate, 4.9. While many of these differences stem from discriminatory levels of coverage and care after delivery, just as important is the coverage and care before delivery: prenatal care.

Prenatal care includes a variety of screening tests, including those that can help expecting mothers identify whether the baby is more or less likely to have certain genetic disorders. These tests include traditional and less accurate options like serum or combined screening, and newer noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) options that use blood samples from the mother to analyze the baby’s DNA.

Research already has demonstrated that NIPT is the most accurate and effective screening option for common chromosomal abnormalities (Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2019;19[4]:1-166). A 2015 New England Journal of Medicine study showed that, without access to NIPT, 22% of pregnancies with Down syndrome were missed. With older screening methods, 5.4% of positive results for Down syndrome were false, compared with 0.06% of the NIPT tests (N Engl J Med 2015;372:1589-97). Older, less accurate screening tests cause unnecessary referrals to specialists for possible invasive testing, resulting in additional costs and undue stress on women and their families.

And yet, troubling new data have shown that black and Hispanic women have less access to NIPT than white women. Currently, NIPT is available to all California women through the state-funded prenatal screening program as a second-tier test. Many women, however, decide to opt out or go outside of the state program to have NIPT as a first-tier test, choosing private payer or other plans instead. New data shared by the California Department of Public Health with ob.gyns. and maternal-fetal medicine physicians in California showed that white women who opted out of California’s state-funded prenatal screening program were more than twice as likely to gain access to NIPT as black and Hispanic women (39%-17%). We can assume this to be true of women outside California as well – women who have no access to a state-funded program like California’s and depend solely on private payer or other health care plans. In fact, although some commercial insurance companies do cover NIPT, noninvasive prenatal screening is not covered by large insurance companies like Aetna and UnitedHealthcare.

As ob.gyns., physicians, and health professionals, we need to ask ourselves: Why is there such a great disparity in the access of superior and more effective NIPT options for black and Hispanic women?

Many reasons are apparent. There are significant differences by ethnic and racial groups in their knowledge of the availability of prenatal testing. Furthermore, there are higher levels of mistrust along certain racial and ethnic lines of the medical system in this country; specific religious or ethnic beliefs also may obviate the use of prenatal testing or diagnosis. Significant differences also exist in the types of health coverage by race and ethnicity, ultimately impacting the ability to have prenatal testing. Finally, there are different physician group recommendations. While medical societies such as the American College of Medical Genetics, International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, and the American Society of Human Genetics all have long endorsed newer NIPT option for all pregnant women, two of the national physician groups that make recommendations about what care pregnant women should be able to access – the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine – only recently have recommended broad access to NIPT. As a result, some state Medicaid programs have not made NIPT available to patients.

We know that racial disparities are a public health crisis in America. The recent data from the California Department of Public Health, paired with COVID-19’s disproportionate impact on blacks and Hispanics, only further illustrate the existing health disparities experienced by this country’s communities of color.

We need to root out systemic discrimination in health care and we can begin with our maternal health care. Providing equitable access to the most accurate and consistent prenatal screenings, including NIPT options, regardless of insurance plan, socioeconomic level, race, or ethnicity is paramount in starting this work.
 

Dr. Gaither is a double board–certified physician in ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine. She is director of perinatal services for NYC Health+Hospitals/Lincoln. She reports no conflicts of interest. Email her at [email protected].

Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing national conversations around racial injustice, it is more important than ever that we identify and root out systemic discrimination – including in our health care system. As an ob.gyn., I’ve spent my entire career making sure that women receive the best care, and have witnessed firsthand the results of a system that provides differing levels of care based on one’s socioeconomic level, race, or ethnicity. The simple and sad reality is black and Hispanic women in this country continue to have less access to critical maternal and prenatal care.

This disparity is borne out in this country’s maternal health outcomes. For example, the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that the maternal mortality rate for black women, 37.1 deaths per 100,000 live births, is more than double the rate for white women at 14.7. In addition, the black infant mortality rate, at 11.4 per 1,000 live births, is also more than double the white infant mortality rate, 4.9. While many of these differences stem from discriminatory levels of coverage and care after delivery, just as important is the coverage and care before delivery: prenatal care.

Prenatal care includes a variety of screening tests, including those that can help expecting mothers identify whether the baby is more or less likely to have certain genetic disorders. These tests include traditional and less accurate options like serum or combined screening, and newer noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) options that use blood samples from the mother to analyze the baby’s DNA.

Research already has demonstrated that NIPT is the most accurate and effective screening option for common chromosomal abnormalities (Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2019;19[4]:1-166). A 2015 New England Journal of Medicine study showed that, without access to NIPT, 22% of pregnancies with Down syndrome were missed. With older screening methods, 5.4% of positive results for Down syndrome were false, compared with 0.06% of the NIPT tests (N Engl J Med 2015;372:1589-97). Older, less accurate screening tests cause unnecessary referrals to specialists for possible invasive testing, resulting in additional costs and undue stress on women and their families.

And yet, troubling new data have shown that black and Hispanic women have less access to NIPT than white women. Currently, NIPT is available to all California women through the state-funded prenatal screening program as a second-tier test. Many women, however, decide to opt out or go outside of the state program to have NIPT as a first-tier test, choosing private payer or other plans instead. New data shared by the California Department of Public Health with ob.gyns. and maternal-fetal medicine physicians in California showed that white women who opted out of California’s state-funded prenatal screening program were more than twice as likely to gain access to NIPT as black and Hispanic women (39%-17%). We can assume this to be true of women outside California as well – women who have no access to a state-funded program like California’s and depend solely on private payer or other health care plans. In fact, although some commercial insurance companies do cover NIPT, noninvasive prenatal screening is not covered by large insurance companies like Aetna and UnitedHealthcare.

As ob.gyns., physicians, and health professionals, we need to ask ourselves: Why is there such a great disparity in the access of superior and more effective NIPT options for black and Hispanic women?

Many reasons are apparent. There are significant differences by ethnic and racial groups in their knowledge of the availability of prenatal testing. Furthermore, there are higher levels of mistrust along certain racial and ethnic lines of the medical system in this country; specific religious or ethnic beliefs also may obviate the use of prenatal testing or diagnosis. Significant differences also exist in the types of health coverage by race and ethnicity, ultimately impacting the ability to have prenatal testing. Finally, there are different physician group recommendations. While medical societies such as the American College of Medical Genetics, International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, and the American Society of Human Genetics all have long endorsed newer NIPT option for all pregnant women, two of the national physician groups that make recommendations about what care pregnant women should be able to access – the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine – only recently have recommended broad access to NIPT. As a result, some state Medicaid programs have not made NIPT available to patients.

We know that racial disparities are a public health crisis in America. The recent data from the California Department of Public Health, paired with COVID-19’s disproportionate impact on blacks and Hispanics, only further illustrate the existing health disparities experienced by this country’s communities of color.

We need to root out systemic discrimination in health care and we can begin with our maternal health care. Providing equitable access to the most accurate and consistent prenatal screenings, including NIPT options, regardless of insurance plan, socioeconomic level, race, or ethnicity is paramount in starting this work.
 

Dr. Gaither is a double board–certified physician in ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine. She is director of perinatal services for NYC Health+Hospitals/Lincoln. She reports no conflicts of interest. Email her at [email protected].

Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing national conversations around racial injustice, it is more important than ever that we identify and root out systemic discrimination – including in our health care system. As an ob.gyn., I’ve spent my entire career making sure that women receive the best care, and have witnessed firsthand the results of a system that provides differing levels of care based on one’s socioeconomic level, race, or ethnicity. The simple and sad reality is black and Hispanic women in this country continue to have less access to critical maternal and prenatal care.

This disparity is borne out in this country’s maternal health outcomes. For example, the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that the maternal mortality rate for black women, 37.1 deaths per 100,000 live births, is more than double the rate for white women at 14.7. In addition, the black infant mortality rate, at 11.4 per 1,000 live births, is also more than double the white infant mortality rate, 4.9. While many of these differences stem from discriminatory levels of coverage and care after delivery, just as important is the coverage and care before delivery: prenatal care.

Prenatal care includes a variety of screening tests, including those that can help expecting mothers identify whether the baby is more or less likely to have certain genetic disorders. These tests include traditional and less accurate options like serum or combined screening, and newer noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) options that use blood samples from the mother to analyze the baby’s DNA.

Research already has demonstrated that NIPT is the most accurate and effective screening option for common chromosomal abnormalities (Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2019;19[4]:1-166). A 2015 New England Journal of Medicine study showed that, without access to NIPT, 22% of pregnancies with Down syndrome were missed. With older screening methods, 5.4% of positive results for Down syndrome were false, compared with 0.06% of the NIPT tests (N Engl J Med 2015;372:1589-97). Older, less accurate screening tests cause unnecessary referrals to specialists for possible invasive testing, resulting in additional costs and undue stress on women and their families.

And yet, troubling new data have shown that black and Hispanic women have less access to NIPT than white women. Currently, NIPT is available to all California women through the state-funded prenatal screening program as a second-tier test. Many women, however, decide to opt out or go outside of the state program to have NIPT as a first-tier test, choosing private payer or other plans instead. New data shared by the California Department of Public Health with ob.gyns. and maternal-fetal medicine physicians in California showed that white women who opted out of California’s state-funded prenatal screening program were more than twice as likely to gain access to NIPT as black and Hispanic women (39%-17%). We can assume this to be true of women outside California as well – women who have no access to a state-funded program like California’s and depend solely on private payer or other health care plans. In fact, although some commercial insurance companies do cover NIPT, noninvasive prenatal screening is not covered by large insurance companies like Aetna and UnitedHealthcare.

As ob.gyns., physicians, and health professionals, we need to ask ourselves: Why is there such a great disparity in the access of superior and more effective NIPT options for black and Hispanic women?

Many reasons are apparent. There are significant differences by ethnic and racial groups in their knowledge of the availability of prenatal testing. Furthermore, there are higher levels of mistrust along certain racial and ethnic lines of the medical system in this country; specific religious or ethnic beliefs also may obviate the use of prenatal testing or diagnosis. Significant differences also exist in the types of health coverage by race and ethnicity, ultimately impacting the ability to have prenatal testing. Finally, there are different physician group recommendations. While medical societies such as the American College of Medical Genetics, International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, and the American Society of Human Genetics all have long endorsed newer NIPT option for all pregnant women, two of the national physician groups that make recommendations about what care pregnant women should be able to access – the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine – only recently have recommended broad access to NIPT. As a result, some state Medicaid programs have not made NIPT available to patients.

We know that racial disparities are a public health crisis in America. The recent data from the California Department of Public Health, paired with COVID-19’s disproportionate impact on blacks and Hispanics, only further illustrate the existing health disparities experienced by this country’s communities of color.

We need to root out systemic discrimination in health care and we can begin with our maternal health care. Providing equitable access to the most accurate and consistent prenatal screenings, including NIPT options, regardless of insurance plan, socioeconomic level, race, or ethnicity is paramount in starting this work.
 

Dr. Gaither is a double board–certified physician in ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine. She is director of perinatal services for NYC Health+Hospitals/Lincoln. She reports no conflicts of interest. Email her at [email protected].