Women's Health

SAN DIEGO – Pregnant individuals with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) are at least four times more likely to experience an acute cardiovascular event (CVE) than are pregnant individuals without these conditions, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Pregnant individuals with primary antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) had a 15-fold increase in CVE risk.

Patients who experienced CVEs were also more likely to experience preterm birth and other adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs).

zoranm/Getty Images

Rashmi Dhital, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues examined the medical records of pregnant individuals in California who had delivered singleton live-born infants from 2005 to 2020. Using data from the Study of Outcomes in Mothers and Infants (SOMI) database, an administrative population-based birth cohort in California, they identified more than 7 million individuals, 19,340 with ARDs and 7,758 with APS.

They then analyzed how many patients experienced an acute CVE during pregnancy and up to 6 weeks after giving birth.

CVEs occurred in 2.0% of patients with ARDs, 6.9% of individuals with APS, and 0.4% of women without these conditions. CVE risk was four times higher in the ARDs group (adjusted relative risk, 4.1; 95% confidence interval, 3.7-4.5) and nearly 15 times higher in the APS group (aRR, 14.7; 95% CI, 13.5-16.0) than in the comparison group. Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) had a sixfold higher risk of CVE, which was further exacerbated by concomitant APS (18-fold higher risk) or lupus nephritis (15-fold higher risk).

Dr. Dhital also classified CVEs as either venous thromboembolism and non-VTE events. Pregnant patients with APS had a high risk for VTE-only CVE (40-fold greater) and a 3.7-fold higher risk of non-VTE events, compared with pregnant patients without these conditions. Patients with SLE along with lupus nephritis had a 20-fold increased risk of VTE-only CVE and an 11-fold higher risk of non-VTE CVE.

Although the study grouped rheumatic diseases together, “lupus is generally driving these results,” Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in an interview. She moderated the plenary session where the research was presented. “If you take out lupus, then what is the risk? That would be an interesting question.”

Between 25% and 30% of all CVEs occurred in the postpartum period, highlighting the importance of close monitoring of cardiovascular risks and events in women with ARDs or APS both during pregnancy and postpartum, Dr. Dhital noted.

Recognizing these risks “can sometimes be challenging due to a lower suspicion of CVE in younger patients, and also symptoms overlap with normal pregnancy,” Dr. Dhital said during her plenary presentation. Working with other clinical teams could help physicians detect these risks in patients.

“It’s important for us to remember that there’s increased risk of cardiovascular events in pregnancy in our patients. It’s uncommon, but it’s not zero,” added Dr. Kolasinski, and this study highlighted when physicians should be more focused about that risk.

Dr. Dhital noted there were some limitations to the study that are inherent in using administrative databases for research that relies on ICD codes, including “the availability of information on disease activity, medications, and labs, which may restrict clinical interpretation.”
 

SOMI data reinforced by National Inpatient Sample study

The findings were complemented by a study using the National Inpatient Sample database to explore CVE risk in pregnant individuals with various rheumatic diseases. Lead author Karun Shrestha, MD, a resident physician at St. Barnabas Hospital in New York, and colleagues identified delivery hospitalizations from 2016 to 2019 for individuals with SLE, RA, and systemic vasculitis and looked for CVEs including preeclampsia, peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM), heart failure, stroke, cardiac arrhythmias, and VTE.

Lucy Hicks/Medscape Medical News

Out of over 3.4 million delivery hospitalizations, researchers identified 5,900 individuals with SLE, 4,895 with RA, and 325 with vasculitis. After adjusting for confounding factors such as race, age, insurance, and other comorbidities, SLE was identified as an independent risk factor for preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1), arrhythmia (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.73-5.79), and venous thrombosis (OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 2.9-22.1). Vasculitis was tied to increased risk for preeclampsia (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2-11.3), stroke (OR, 513.3; 95% CI, 114-2,284), heart failure (OR, 24.17; 95% CI, 4.68-124.6), and PPCM (OR, 66.7; 95% CI, 8.7-509.4). RA was tied to an increased risk for preeclampsia (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.05-2.1).

Patients with SLE or vasculitis had longer, more costly hospital stays, compared with those without these conditions, and they experienced higher rates of in-hospital mortality. While previous research has demonstrated that patients with SLE have higher risk of cardiac events, there is less literature on CVE risk in pregnancies for vasculitis, Dr. Shrestha said in an interview.

“It’s something to work on,” he said.
 

Adverse pregnancy outcomes higher with ARDs, APS

In a second abstract also led by Dr. Dhital using SOMI data, researchers found that pregnant individuals with ARDs or APS had a higher risk of experiencing an APO – preterm birth or small-for-gestational age – than individuals without these conditions. CVEs exacerbated that risk, regardless of underlying chronic health conditions.

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

SAN DIEGO – Pregnant individuals with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) are at least four times more likely to experience an acute cardiovascular event (CVE) than are pregnant individuals without these conditions, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Pregnant individuals with primary antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) had a 15-fold increase in CVE risk.

Patients who experienced CVEs were also more likely to experience preterm birth and other adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs).

zoranm/Getty Images

Rashmi Dhital, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues examined the medical records of pregnant individuals in California who had delivered singleton live-born infants from 2005 to 2020. Using data from the Study of Outcomes in Mothers and Infants (SOMI) database, an administrative population-based birth cohort in California, they identified more than 7 million individuals, 19,340 with ARDs and 7,758 with APS.

They then analyzed how many patients experienced an acute CVE during pregnancy and up to 6 weeks after giving birth.

CVEs occurred in 2.0% of patients with ARDs, 6.9% of individuals with APS, and 0.4% of women without these conditions. CVE risk was four times higher in the ARDs group (adjusted relative risk, 4.1; 95% confidence interval, 3.7-4.5) and nearly 15 times higher in the APS group (aRR, 14.7; 95% CI, 13.5-16.0) than in the comparison group. Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) had a sixfold higher risk of CVE, which was further exacerbated by concomitant APS (18-fold higher risk) or lupus nephritis (15-fold higher risk).

Dr. Dhital also classified CVEs as either venous thromboembolism and non-VTE events. Pregnant patients with APS had a high risk for VTE-only CVE (40-fold greater) and a 3.7-fold higher risk of non-VTE events, compared with pregnant patients without these conditions. Patients with SLE along with lupus nephritis had a 20-fold increased risk of VTE-only CVE and an 11-fold higher risk of non-VTE CVE.

Although the study grouped rheumatic diseases together, “lupus is generally driving these results,” Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in an interview. She moderated the plenary session where the research was presented. “If you take out lupus, then what is the risk? That would be an interesting question.”

Between 25% and 30% of all CVEs occurred in the postpartum period, highlighting the importance of close monitoring of cardiovascular risks and events in women with ARDs or APS both during pregnancy and postpartum, Dr. Dhital noted.

Recognizing these risks “can sometimes be challenging due to a lower suspicion of CVE in younger patients, and also symptoms overlap with normal pregnancy,” Dr. Dhital said during her plenary presentation. Working with other clinical teams could help physicians detect these risks in patients.

“It’s important for us to remember that there’s increased risk of cardiovascular events in pregnancy in our patients. It’s uncommon, but it’s not zero,” added Dr. Kolasinski, and this study highlighted when physicians should be more focused about that risk.

Dr. Dhital noted there were some limitations to the study that are inherent in using administrative databases for research that relies on ICD codes, including “the availability of information on disease activity, medications, and labs, which may restrict clinical interpretation.”
 

SOMI data reinforced by National Inpatient Sample study

The findings were complemented by a study using the National Inpatient Sample database to explore CVE risk in pregnant individuals with various rheumatic diseases. Lead author Karun Shrestha, MD, a resident physician at St. Barnabas Hospital in New York, and colleagues identified delivery hospitalizations from 2016 to 2019 for individuals with SLE, RA, and systemic vasculitis and looked for CVEs including preeclampsia, peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM), heart failure, stroke, cardiac arrhythmias, and VTE.

Lucy Hicks/Medscape Medical News

Out of over 3.4 million delivery hospitalizations, researchers identified 5,900 individuals with SLE, 4,895 with RA, and 325 with vasculitis. After adjusting for confounding factors such as race, age, insurance, and other comorbidities, SLE was identified as an independent risk factor for preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1), arrhythmia (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.73-5.79), and venous thrombosis (OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 2.9-22.1). Vasculitis was tied to increased risk for preeclampsia (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2-11.3), stroke (OR, 513.3; 95% CI, 114-2,284), heart failure (OR, 24.17; 95% CI, 4.68-124.6), and PPCM (OR, 66.7; 95% CI, 8.7-509.4). RA was tied to an increased risk for preeclampsia (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.05-2.1).

Patients with SLE or vasculitis had longer, more costly hospital stays, compared with those without these conditions, and they experienced higher rates of in-hospital mortality. While previous research has demonstrated that patients with SLE have higher risk of cardiac events, there is less literature on CVE risk in pregnancies for vasculitis, Dr. Shrestha said in an interview.

“It’s something to work on,” he said.
 

Adverse pregnancy outcomes higher with ARDs, APS

In a second abstract also led by Dr. Dhital using SOMI data, researchers found that pregnant individuals with ARDs or APS had a higher risk of experiencing an APO – preterm birth or small-for-gestational age – than individuals without these conditions. CVEs exacerbated that risk, regardless of underlying chronic health conditions.

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

SAN DIEGO – Pregnant individuals with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) are at least four times more likely to experience an acute cardiovascular event (CVE) than are pregnant individuals without these conditions, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Pregnant individuals with primary antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) had a 15-fold increase in CVE risk.

Patients who experienced CVEs were also more likely to experience preterm birth and other adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs).

zoranm/Getty Images

Rashmi Dhital, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues examined the medical records of pregnant individuals in California who had delivered singleton live-born infants from 2005 to 2020. Using data from the Study of Outcomes in Mothers and Infants (SOMI) database, an administrative population-based birth cohort in California, they identified more than 7 million individuals, 19,340 with ARDs and 7,758 with APS.

They then analyzed how many patients experienced an acute CVE during pregnancy and up to 6 weeks after giving birth.

CVEs occurred in 2.0% of patients with ARDs, 6.9% of individuals with APS, and 0.4% of women without these conditions. CVE risk was four times higher in the ARDs group (adjusted relative risk, 4.1; 95% confidence interval, 3.7-4.5) and nearly 15 times higher in the APS group (aRR, 14.7; 95% CI, 13.5-16.0) than in the comparison group. Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) had a sixfold higher risk of CVE, which was further exacerbated by concomitant APS (18-fold higher risk) or lupus nephritis (15-fold higher risk).

Dr. Dhital also classified CVEs as either venous thromboembolism and non-VTE events. Pregnant patients with APS had a high risk for VTE-only CVE (40-fold greater) and a 3.7-fold higher risk of non-VTE events, compared with pregnant patients without these conditions. Patients with SLE along with lupus nephritis had a 20-fold increased risk of VTE-only CVE and an 11-fold higher risk of non-VTE CVE.

Although the study grouped rheumatic diseases together, “lupus is generally driving these results,” Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in an interview. She moderated the plenary session where the research was presented. “If you take out lupus, then what is the risk? That would be an interesting question.”

Between 25% and 30% of all CVEs occurred in the postpartum period, highlighting the importance of close monitoring of cardiovascular risks and events in women with ARDs or APS both during pregnancy and postpartum, Dr. Dhital noted.

Recognizing these risks “can sometimes be challenging due to a lower suspicion of CVE in younger patients, and also symptoms overlap with normal pregnancy,” Dr. Dhital said during her plenary presentation. Working with other clinical teams could help physicians detect these risks in patients.

“It’s important for us to remember that there’s increased risk of cardiovascular events in pregnancy in our patients. It’s uncommon, but it’s not zero,” added Dr. Kolasinski, and this study highlighted when physicians should be more focused about that risk.

Dr. Dhital noted there were some limitations to the study that are inherent in using administrative databases for research that relies on ICD codes, including “the availability of information on disease activity, medications, and labs, which may restrict clinical interpretation.”
 

SOMI data reinforced by National Inpatient Sample study

The findings were complemented by a study using the National Inpatient Sample database to explore CVE risk in pregnant individuals with various rheumatic diseases. Lead author Karun Shrestha, MD, a resident physician at St. Barnabas Hospital in New York, and colleagues identified delivery hospitalizations from 2016 to 2019 for individuals with SLE, RA, and systemic vasculitis and looked for CVEs including preeclampsia, peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM), heart failure, stroke, cardiac arrhythmias, and VTE.

Lucy Hicks/Medscape Medical News

Out of over 3.4 million delivery hospitalizations, researchers identified 5,900 individuals with SLE, 4,895 with RA, and 325 with vasculitis. After adjusting for confounding factors such as race, age, insurance, and other comorbidities, SLE was identified as an independent risk factor for preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1), arrhythmia (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.73-5.79), and venous thrombosis (OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 2.9-22.1). Vasculitis was tied to increased risk for preeclampsia (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2-11.3), stroke (OR, 513.3; 95% CI, 114-2,284), heart failure (OR, 24.17; 95% CI, 4.68-124.6), and PPCM (OR, 66.7; 95% CI, 8.7-509.4). RA was tied to an increased risk for preeclampsia (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.05-2.1).

Patients with SLE or vasculitis had longer, more costly hospital stays, compared with those without these conditions, and they experienced higher rates of in-hospital mortality. While previous research has demonstrated that patients with SLE have higher risk of cardiac events, there is less literature on CVE risk in pregnancies for vasculitis, Dr. Shrestha said in an interview.

“It’s something to work on,” he said.
 

Adverse pregnancy outcomes higher with ARDs, APS

In a second abstract also led by Dr. Dhital using SOMI data, researchers found that pregnant individuals with ARDs or APS had a higher risk of experiencing an APO – preterm birth or small-for-gestational age – than individuals without these conditions. CVEs exacerbated that risk, regardless of underlying chronic health conditions.

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

SAN DIEGO – Pregnant women with anti-SSA/Ro autoantibodies at titer levels of less than 1,000 ELISA units per mL are at minimal to no risk for fetal atrioventricular (AV) block and may be able to forgo traditional echocardiographic heart rhythm monitoring, results from an ongoing, prospective, multicenter trial demonstrated.

However, pregnant patients with higher titer antibodies seem to be at greatest risk for fetal AV block and may benefit from ambulatory fetal heart rhythm monitoring (FHRM), which can detect emergent AV block, according to the study findings. The findings were published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology and will be presented Nov. 13 at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 Annual Meeting by Jill P. Buyon, MD, a rheumatologist who directs the division of rheumatology and the Lupus Center at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“While anti-Ro antibodies have been known to be associated with AV block for decades, it has become increasingly clear that antibody titers matter,” Dr. Buyon said in an interview.

For the investigation, which is the largest of its kind, researchers at 22 sites drew from the large multiracial national study of pregnant women, Surveillance To Prevent AV Block Likely to Occur Quickly (STOP BLOQ), to address the impact of anti-Ro titers and use of frequent ambulatory FHRM on outcomes in women with no previously affected children and those at risk for recurrence. Monitoring occurred during the second trimester of pregnancy (from 17 weeks through 26 weeks) and consisted of daily fetal home testing by mothers using handheld, commercially available Doppler devices.

These were followed up by weekly or biweekly echocardiograms, and ultrasound tests to evaluate fetal heart rhythm and function, as well as to show any structural problems. Three times per day, the pregnant women texted the Doppler sound recordings in real time to a pediatric cardiologist, who immediately ordered an additional echocardiogram in cases of irregular or slowing fetal heart rates. If second-degree heart block was detected, drug therapy was initiated.
 

No AV block seen with low anti-Ro titers

Dr. Buyon, who led the study with Bettina Cuneo, MD, clinical scholar and professor of surgery and pediatrics at the University of Arizona in Tucson, presented findings from 413 pregnant subjects with a mean age of 33 years who finished monitoring surveillance: 152 women had low titers of both anti-Ro60 and –Ro52 (defined as < 1,000 ELISA units per mL), and 261 women with titers above the threshold for either antibody (defined as ≥ 1,000 ELISA units per mL). Of the 152 women with low titers of both anti-Ro60 and –Ro52, none of the pregnancies past 26 weeks resulted in AV block. Of the 261 women with titers above the threshold for either antibody, 10 of the pregnancies resulted in AV block (3.8%). The incidence of AV block increased with higher antibody titer levels, reaching 7.7% for those in the top quartile for anti–60-kD SSA/Ro; this increased to 27.3% in study participants with a previous child who had AV block, although numbers in this category were small.

Analysis of cumulative FHRM recordings between surveillance echocardiograms revealed that no case of second-degree or third-degree AV block was missed. In addition, 70% of AV blocks detected by FHRM were second-degree and all occurred less than 12 hours from normal FHRM and within another 45 minutes to 4.5 hours to echocardiogram. The one case of second/third-degree and two cases of third-degree AV block were diagnosed by urgent echocardiogram more than 17 to 72 hours from a previously normal FHRM episode.
 

Other factors besides high anti-Ro titer likely play a role

“STOP BLOQ nicely demonstrates that low titer is associated with a very low risk AV block, and intense monitoring may not be needed,” Dr. Buyon told this news organization. “However, high titer is not the whole answer since even women with the very highest titers can have healthy babies. This report also shows that titers stay constant through pregnancies in the same mother, whether there is the complication of AV block or not. This suggests other factors contribute to AV block.”

She added that FHRM can be easily performed by the mother, but at this time is still best interpreted by a cardiologist. “FHRM detected all cases of AV block, which can happen in hours,” she said. “FHRM should decrease the need for frequent echocardiograms. Some mothers do have more difficulty in deciding whether the baby’s heart is beating irregularly. We need [to improve our teaching] and for how best to have a cardiologist or trained listener interpret. FHRM can be done by the mother but needs interpretation by a cardiologist until we develop a device which can identify abnormalities.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that a commercial test for anti-SSA/Ro antibody levels is not available to all clinicians. “Try to find a lab that measures high titer anti-Ro antibodies, but if not, then use one of the common commercial tests such as the BioPlex 2000 autoimmune panels and consider decreased surveillance if titer is < 8,” Dr. Buyon advised.

Vaneet K. Sandhu, MD, a rheumatologist with Loma Linda (Calif.) Medical Center, who was asked to comment on the work, said that the study not only justifies the limited use of FHRM in those with high titer antibodies (followed by urgent fetal echocardiography where indicated), but also risk stratification for fetal AV block.

Loma Linda University Health

“For years, we have recommended frequent fetal echocardiography testing in pregnant women with positive anti-SSA/Ro,” Dr. Sandhu said. “This study tells us we need to look deeper. On one hand, recognizing that low titer anti-Ro antibodies do not confer a risk of AV block is cost effective. On the other hand, while the titer of the antibody appears to contribute to fetal AV block, we need to delve deeper into additional factors contributing to fetal AV block risk in order to better navigate our surveillance methods.”

The study was supported by NIH grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Sandhu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

SAN DIEGO – Pregnant women with anti-SSA/Ro autoantibodies at titer levels of less than 1,000 ELISA units per mL are at minimal to no risk for fetal atrioventricular (AV) block and may be able to forgo traditional echocardiographic heart rhythm monitoring, results from an ongoing, prospective, multicenter trial demonstrated.

However, pregnant patients with higher titer antibodies seem to be at greatest risk for fetal AV block and may benefit from ambulatory fetal heart rhythm monitoring (FHRM), which can detect emergent AV block, according to the study findings. The findings were published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology and will be presented Nov. 13 at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 Annual Meeting by Jill P. Buyon, MD, a rheumatologist who directs the division of rheumatology and the Lupus Center at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“While anti-Ro antibodies have been known to be associated with AV block for decades, it has become increasingly clear that antibody titers matter,” Dr. Buyon said in an interview.

For the investigation, which is the largest of its kind, researchers at 22 sites drew from the large multiracial national study of pregnant women, Surveillance To Prevent AV Block Likely to Occur Quickly (STOP BLOQ), to address the impact of anti-Ro titers and use of frequent ambulatory FHRM on outcomes in women with no previously affected children and those at risk for recurrence. Monitoring occurred during the second trimester of pregnancy (from 17 weeks through 26 weeks) and consisted of daily fetal home testing by mothers using handheld, commercially available Doppler devices.

These were followed up by weekly or biweekly echocardiograms, and ultrasound tests to evaluate fetal heart rhythm and function, as well as to show any structural problems. Three times per day, the pregnant women texted the Doppler sound recordings in real time to a pediatric cardiologist, who immediately ordered an additional echocardiogram in cases of irregular or slowing fetal heart rates. If second-degree heart block was detected, drug therapy was initiated.
 

No AV block seen with low anti-Ro titers

Dr. Buyon, who led the study with Bettina Cuneo, MD, clinical scholar and professor of surgery and pediatrics at the University of Arizona in Tucson, presented findings from 413 pregnant subjects with a mean age of 33 years who finished monitoring surveillance: 152 women had low titers of both anti-Ro60 and –Ro52 (defined as < 1,000 ELISA units per mL), and 261 women with titers above the threshold for either antibody (defined as ≥ 1,000 ELISA units per mL). Of the 152 women with low titers of both anti-Ro60 and –Ro52, none of the pregnancies past 26 weeks resulted in AV block. Of the 261 women with titers above the threshold for either antibody, 10 of the pregnancies resulted in AV block (3.8%). The incidence of AV block increased with higher antibody titer levels, reaching 7.7% for those in the top quartile for anti–60-kD SSA/Ro; this increased to 27.3% in study participants with a previous child who had AV block, although numbers in this category were small.

Analysis of cumulative FHRM recordings between surveillance echocardiograms revealed that no case of second-degree or third-degree AV block was missed. In addition, 70% of AV blocks detected by FHRM were second-degree and all occurred less than 12 hours from normal FHRM and within another 45 minutes to 4.5 hours to echocardiogram. The one case of second/third-degree and two cases of third-degree AV block were diagnosed by urgent echocardiogram more than 17 to 72 hours from a previously normal FHRM episode.
 

Other factors besides high anti-Ro titer likely play a role

“STOP BLOQ nicely demonstrates that low titer is associated with a very low risk AV block, and intense monitoring may not be needed,” Dr. Buyon told this news organization. “However, high titer is not the whole answer since even women with the very highest titers can have healthy babies. This report also shows that titers stay constant through pregnancies in the same mother, whether there is the complication of AV block or not. This suggests other factors contribute to AV block.”

She added that FHRM can be easily performed by the mother, but at this time is still best interpreted by a cardiologist. “FHRM detected all cases of AV block, which can happen in hours,” she said. “FHRM should decrease the need for frequent echocardiograms. Some mothers do have more difficulty in deciding whether the baby’s heart is beating irregularly. We need [to improve our teaching] and for how best to have a cardiologist or trained listener interpret. FHRM can be done by the mother but needs interpretation by a cardiologist until we develop a device which can identify abnormalities.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that a commercial test for anti-SSA/Ro antibody levels is not available to all clinicians. “Try to find a lab that measures high titer anti-Ro antibodies, but if not, then use one of the common commercial tests such as the BioPlex 2000 autoimmune panels and consider decreased surveillance if titer is < 8,” Dr. Buyon advised.

Vaneet K. Sandhu, MD, a rheumatologist with Loma Linda (Calif.) Medical Center, who was asked to comment on the work, said that the study not only justifies the limited use of FHRM in those with high titer antibodies (followed by urgent fetal echocardiography where indicated), but also risk stratification for fetal AV block.

Loma Linda University Health

“For years, we have recommended frequent fetal echocardiography testing in pregnant women with positive anti-SSA/Ro,” Dr. Sandhu said. “This study tells us we need to look deeper. On one hand, recognizing that low titer anti-Ro antibodies do not confer a risk of AV block is cost effective. On the other hand, while the titer of the antibody appears to contribute to fetal AV block, we need to delve deeper into additional factors contributing to fetal AV block risk in order to better navigate our surveillance methods.”

The study was supported by NIH grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Sandhu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

SAN DIEGO – Pregnant women with anti-SSA/Ro autoantibodies at titer levels of less than 1,000 ELISA units per mL are at minimal to no risk for fetal atrioventricular (AV) block and may be able to forgo traditional echocardiographic heart rhythm monitoring, results from an ongoing, prospective, multicenter trial demonstrated.

However, pregnant patients with higher titer antibodies seem to be at greatest risk for fetal AV block and may benefit from ambulatory fetal heart rhythm monitoring (FHRM), which can detect emergent AV block, according to the study findings. The findings were published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology and will be presented Nov. 13 at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 Annual Meeting by Jill P. Buyon, MD, a rheumatologist who directs the division of rheumatology and the Lupus Center at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“While anti-Ro antibodies have been known to be associated with AV block for decades, it has become increasingly clear that antibody titers matter,” Dr. Buyon said in an interview.

For the investigation, which is the largest of its kind, researchers at 22 sites drew from the large multiracial national study of pregnant women, Surveillance To Prevent AV Block Likely to Occur Quickly (STOP BLOQ), to address the impact of anti-Ro titers and use of frequent ambulatory FHRM on outcomes in women with no previously affected children and those at risk for recurrence. Monitoring occurred during the second trimester of pregnancy (from 17 weeks through 26 weeks) and consisted of daily fetal home testing by mothers using handheld, commercially available Doppler devices.

These were followed up by weekly or biweekly echocardiograms, and ultrasound tests to evaluate fetal heart rhythm and function, as well as to show any structural problems. Three times per day, the pregnant women texted the Doppler sound recordings in real time to a pediatric cardiologist, who immediately ordered an additional echocardiogram in cases of irregular or slowing fetal heart rates. If second-degree heart block was detected, drug therapy was initiated.
 

No AV block seen with low anti-Ro titers

Dr. Buyon, who led the study with Bettina Cuneo, MD, clinical scholar and professor of surgery and pediatrics at the University of Arizona in Tucson, presented findings from 413 pregnant subjects with a mean age of 33 years who finished monitoring surveillance: 152 women had low titers of both anti-Ro60 and –Ro52 (defined as < 1,000 ELISA units per mL), and 261 women with titers above the threshold for either antibody (defined as ≥ 1,000 ELISA units per mL). Of the 152 women with low titers of both anti-Ro60 and –Ro52, none of the pregnancies past 26 weeks resulted in AV block. Of the 261 women with titers above the threshold for either antibody, 10 of the pregnancies resulted in AV block (3.8%). The incidence of AV block increased with higher antibody titer levels, reaching 7.7% for those in the top quartile for anti–60-kD SSA/Ro; this increased to 27.3% in study participants with a previous child who had AV block, although numbers in this category were small.

Analysis of cumulative FHRM recordings between surveillance echocardiograms revealed that no case of second-degree or third-degree AV block was missed. In addition, 70% of AV blocks detected by FHRM were second-degree and all occurred less than 12 hours from normal FHRM and within another 45 minutes to 4.5 hours to echocardiogram. The one case of second/third-degree and two cases of third-degree AV block were diagnosed by urgent echocardiogram more than 17 to 72 hours from a previously normal FHRM episode.
 

Other factors besides high anti-Ro titer likely play a role

“STOP BLOQ nicely demonstrates that low titer is associated with a very low risk AV block, and intense monitoring may not be needed,” Dr. Buyon told this news organization. “However, high titer is not the whole answer since even women with the very highest titers can have healthy babies. This report also shows that titers stay constant through pregnancies in the same mother, whether there is the complication of AV block or not. This suggests other factors contribute to AV block.”

She added that FHRM can be easily performed by the mother, but at this time is still best interpreted by a cardiologist. “FHRM detected all cases of AV block, which can happen in hours,” she said. “FHRM should decrease the need for frequent echocardiograms. Some mothers do have more difficulty in deciding whether the baby’s heart is beating irregularly. We need [to improve our teaching] and for how best to have a cardiologist or trained listener interpret. FHRM can be done by the mother but needs interpretation by a cardiologist until we develop a device which can identify abnormalities.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that a commercial test for anti-SSA/Ro antibody levels is not available to all clinicians. “Try to find a lab that measures high titer anti-Ro antibodies, but if not, then use one of the common commercial tests such as the BioPlex 2000 autoimmune panels and consider decreased surveillance if titer is < 8,” Dr. Buyon advised.

Vaneet K. Sandhu, MD, a rheumatologist with Loma Linda (Calif.) Medical Center, who was asked to comment on the work, said that the study not only justifies the limited use of FHRM in those with high titer antibodies (followed by urgent fetal echocardiography where indicated), but also risk stratification for fetal AV block.

Loma Linda University Health

“For years, we have recommended frequent fetal echocardiography testing in pregnant women with positive anti-SSA/Ro,” Dr. Sandhu said. “This study tells us we need to look deeper. On one hand, recognizing that low titer anti-Ro antibodies do not confer a risk of AV block is cost effective. On the other hand, while the titer of the antibody appears to contribute to fetal AV block, we need to delve deeper into additional factors contributing to fetal AV block risk in order to better navigate our surveillance methods.”

The study was supported by NIH grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Sandhu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Evidence summary

Cohort studies demonstrate no adverse CV outcomes

A 2020 systematic review and meta-­analysis evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies to examine the association between menopausal hormone therapy and CV disease.¹ The 26 RCTs primarily evaluated oral hormone administration. The observational studies comprised 30 cohort studies, 13 case-control studies, and 5 nested case-control studies, primarily in Europe and North America; 21 reported the route of administration. The trials evaluated women ages 49 to 77 years (mean, 61 years), and follow-up ranged from 1 to 21.5 years (mean, 7 years). In subgroup analyses of the observational studies, nonoral hormone therapy was associated with a lower risk for stroke and MI compared to oral administration (see TABLE¹). Study limitations included enrollment of patients with few comorbidities, from limited geographic regions. Results in the meta-analysis were not stratified by the type of nonoral hormone therapy; only 4 studies evaluated vaginal estrogen use. 

Two large cohort studies included in the systematic review provided more specific data on vaginal estrogens. The first used data from the Women’s Health Initiative in a subset of women ages 50 to 79 years (n = 46,566) who were not already on systemic hormone therapy and who did not have prior history of breast, endometrial, or ovarian cancer.² Data were collected from self-assessment questionnaires and medical record reviews. The median duration of vaginal estrogen use was 2 years, and median follow-up duration was 7.2 years. Vaginal estrogen users had a 48% lower risk for CHD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.31-0.85) than nonusers. Rates for all-cause mortality (aHR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.04), stroke (aHR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.24), and DVT/PE (aHR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.36-1.28) were similar. In this and the other cohort studies to be discussed, outcome data for all vaginal estrogen preparations (eg, cream, ring, tablet) were combined. 

The other large cohort study in the systematic review evaluated data on postmenopausal women from the Nurses’ Health Study.³ The authors evaluated health reports on 53,797 women as they transitioned through menopause. Patients with systemic hormone therapy use, history of cancer, and self-reported CV disease were excluded. After adjusting for covariates, the authors found no statistically significant difference between users and nonusers of vaginal estrogen and risk for total MI (aHR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.47-1.13), stroke (aHR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.56-1.29), or DVT/PE (aHR = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.58-1.93). Study limitations included low prevalence of vaginal estrogen use (< 3%), short duration of use (mean, 37.5 months), and lack of data on the type or dose of vaginal estrogen used. The study only included health professionals, which limits generalizability. 

A Finnish cohort study (excluded from the systematic review because it used historical controls) compared rates of CHD and stroke in postmenopausal women who used vaginal estrogen against an age-matched background population. Researchers collected­ data from a nationwide prescription registry for women at least 50 years old who had purchased vaginal estrogens between 1994 and 2009 (n = 195,756).⁴ Women who purchased systemic hormone therapy at any point were excluded. After 3 to 5 years of exposure, use of vaginal estrogen was associated with a decreased risk for mortality from CHD (relative risk [RR] = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.70) and stroke (RR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91). However, after 10 years, these benefits were not seen (CHD: RR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-1.00; stroke: RR = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.01). All confidence interval data were presented graphically. Key weaknesses of this study included use of both vaginal and systemic estrogen in the comparator background population, and the failure to collect data for other CV risk variables such as weight, tobacco exposure, and blood pressure.

Recommendations from others

In 2022, the North American Menopause Society issued a Hormone Therapy Position Statement that acknowledged the lack of clinical trials directly comparing risk for adverse CV endpoints with different estrogen administration routes.⁵ They stated nonoral routes of administration might offer advantages by bypassing first-pass hepatic metabolism.

Similarly, the 2015 Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on the Treatment of Symptoms of the Menopause also stated that the effects of low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy on CV disease or DVT/PE risk had not been adequately studied.⁶

A 2013 opinion by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated that topical estrogen vaginal creams, tablets, and rings had low levels of systemic absorption and were not associated with an increased risk for DVT/PE.⁷ 

Editor’s takeaway

The available evidence on vaginal estrogen ­replacement reassures us of its safety. After decades spent studying hormone replacement therapy with vacillating conclusions and opinions, these cohorts—the best evidence we may ever get—along with a consensus of expert opinions, consistently demonstrate no adverse CV outcomes.

Evidence summary

Cohort studies demonstrate no adverse CV outcomes

A 2020 systematic review and meta-­analysis evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies to examine the association between menopausal hormone therapy and CV disease.¹ The 26 RCTs primarily evaluated oral hormone administration. The observational studies comprised 30 cohort studies, 13 case-control studies, and 5 nested case-control studies, primarily in Europe and North America; 21 reported the route of administration. The trials evaluated women ages 49 to 77 years (mean, 61 years), and follow-up ranged from 1 to 21.5 years (mean, 7 years). In subgroup analyses of the observational studies, nonoral hormone therapy was associated with a lower risk for stroke and MI compared to oral administration (see TABLE¹). Study limitations included enrollment of patients with few comorbidities, from limited geographic regions. Results in the meta-analysis were not stratified by the type of nonoral hormone therapy; only 4 studies evaluated vaginal estrogen use. 

Two large cohort studies included in the systematic review provided more specific data on vaginal estrogens. The first used data from the Women’s Health Initiative in a subset of women ages 50 to 79 years (n = 46,566) who were not already on systemic hormone therapy and who did not have prior history of breast, endometrial, or ovarian cancer.² Data were collected from self-assessment questionnaires and medical record reviews. The median duration of vaginal estrogen use was 2 years, and median follow-up duration was 7.2 years. Vaginal estrogen users had a 48% lower risk for CHD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.31-0.85) than nonusers. Rates for all-cause mortality (aHR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.04), stroke (aHR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.24), and DVT/PE (aHR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.36-1.28) were similar. In this and the other cohort studies to be discussed, outcome data for all vaginal estrogen preparations (eg, cream, ring, tablet) were combined. 

The other large cohort study in the systematic review evaluated data on postmenopausal women from the Nurses’ Health Study.³ The authors evaluated health reports on 53,797 women as they transitioned through menopause. Patients with systemic hormone therapy use, history of cancer, and self-reported CV disease were excluded. After adjusting for covariates, the authors found no statistically significant difference between users and nonusers of vaginal estrogen and risk for total MI (aHR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.47-1.13), stroke (aHR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.56-1.29), or DVT/PE (aHR = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.58-1.93). Study limitations included low prevalence of vaginal estrogen use (< 3%), short duration of use (mean, 37.5 months), and lack of data on the type or dose of vaginal estrogen used. The study only included health professionals, which limits generalizability. 

A Finnish cohort study (excluded from the systematic review because it used historical controls) compared rates of CHD and stroke in postmenopausal women who used vaginal estrogen against an age-matched background population. Researchers collected­ data from a nationwide prescription registry for women at least 50 years old who had purchased vaginal estrogens between 1994 and 2009 (n = 195,756).⁴ Women who purchased systemic hormone therapy at any point were excluded. After 3 to 5 years of exposure, use of vaginal estrogen was associated with a decreased risk for mortality from CHD (relative risk [RR] = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.70) and stroke (RR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91). However, after 10 years, these benefits were not seen (CHD: RR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-1.00; stroke: RR = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.01). All confidence interval data were presented graphically. Key weaknesses of this study included use of both vaginal and systemic estrogen in the comparator background population, and the failure to collect data for other CV risk variables such as weight, tobacco exposure, and blood pressure.

Recommendations from others

In 2022, the North American Menopause Society issued a Hormone Therapy Position Statement that acknowledged the lack of clinical trials directly comparing risk for adverse CV endpoints with different estrogen administration routes.⁵ They stated nonoral routes of administration might offer advantages by bypassing first-pass hepatic metabolism.

Similarly, the 2015 Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on the Treatment of Symptoms of the Menopause also stated that the effects of low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy on CV disease or DVT/PE risk had not been adequately studied.⁶

A 2013 opinion by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated that topical estrogen vaginal creams, tablets, and rings had low levels of systemic absorption and were not associated with an increased risk for DVT/PE.⁷ 

Editor’s takeaway

The available evidence on vaginal estrogen ­replacement reassures us of its safety. After decades spent studying hormone replacement therapy with vacillating conclusions and opinions, these cohorts—the best evidence we may ever get—along with a consensus of expert opinions, consistently demonstrate no adverse CV outcomes.

Evidence summary

Cohort studies demonstrate no adverse CV outcomes

A 2020 systematic review and meta-­analysis evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies to examine the association between menopausal hormone therapy and CV disease.¹ The 26 RCTs primarily evaluated oral hormone administration. The observational studies comprised 30 cohort studies, 13 case-control studies, and 5 nested case-control studies, primarily in Europe and North America; 21 reported the route of administration. The trials evaluated women ages 49 to 77 years (mean, 61 years), and follow-up ranged from 1 to 21.5 years (mean, 7 years). In subgroup analyses of the observational studies, nonoral hormone therapy was associated with a lower risk for stroke and MI compared to oral administration (see TABLE¹). Study limitations included enrollment of patients with few comorbidities, from limited geographic regions. Results in the meta-analysis were not stratified by the type of nonoral hormone therapy; only 4 studies evaluated vaginal estrogen use. 

Two large cohort studies included in the systematic review provided more specific data on vaginal estrogens. The first used data from the Women’s Health Initiative in a subset of women ages 50 to 79 years (n = 46,566) who were not already on systemic hormone therapy and who did not have prior history of breast, endometrial, or ovarian cancer.² Data were collected from self-assessment questionnaires and medical record reviews. The median duration of vaginal estrogen use was 2 years, and median follow-up duration was 7.2 years. Vaginal estrogen users had a 48% lower risk for CHD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.31-0.85) than nonusers. Rates for all-cause mortality (aHR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.04), stroke (aHR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.24), and DVT/PE (aHR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.36-1.28) were similar. In this and the other cohort studies to be discussed, outcome data for all vaginal estrogen preparations (eg, cream, ring, tablet) were combined. 

The other large cohort study in the systematic review evaluated data on postmenopausal women from the Nurses’ Health Study.³ The authors evaluated health reports on 53,797 women as they transitioned through menopause. Patients with systemic hormone therapy use, history of cancer, and self-reported CV disease were excluded. After adjusting for covariates, the authors found no statistically significant difference between users and nonusers of vaginal estrogen and risk for total MI (aHR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.47-1.13), stroke (aHR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.56-1.29), or DVT/PE (aHR = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.58-1.93). Study limitations included low prevalence of vaginal estrogen use (< 3%), short duration of use (mean, 37.5 months), and lack of data on the type or dose of vaginal estrogen used. The study only included health professionals, which limits generalizability. 

A Finnish cohort study (excluded from the systematic review because it used historical controls) compared rates of CHD and stroke in postmenopausal women who used vaginal estrogen against an age-matched background population. Researchers collected­ data from a nationwide prescription registry for women at least 50 years old who had purchased vaginal estrogens between 1994 and 2009 (n = 195,756).⁴ Women who purchased systemic hormone therapy at any point were excluded. After 3 to 5 years of exposure, use of vaginal estrogen was associated with a decreased risk for mortality from CHD (relative risk [RR] = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.70) and stroke (RR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91). However, after 10 years, these benefits were not seen (CHD: RR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-1.00; stroke: RR = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.01). All confidence interval data were presented graphically. Key weaknesses of this study included use of both vaginal and systemic estrogen in the comparator background population, and the failure to collect data for other CV risk variables such as weight, tobacco exposure, and blood pressure.

Recommendations from others

In 2022, the North American Menopause Society issued a Hormone Therapy Position Statement that acknowledged the lack of clinical trials directly comparing risk for adverse CV endpoints with different estrogen administration routes.⁵ They stated nonoral routes of administration might offer advantages by bypassing first-pass hepatic metabolism.

Similarly, the 2015 Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on the Treatment of Symptoms of the Menopause also stated that the effects of low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy on CV disease or DVT/PE risk had not been adequately studied.⁶

A 2013 opinion by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated that topical estrogen vaginal creams, tablets, and rings had low levels of systemic absorption and were not associated with an increased risk for DVT/PE.⁷ 

Editor’s takeaway

The available evidence on vaginal estrogen ­replacement reassures us of its safety. After decades spent studying hormone replacement therapy with vacillating conclusions and opinions, these cohorts—the best evidence we may ever get—along with a consensus of expert opinions, consistently demonstrate no adverse CV outcomes.

Two biomarkers – pregnancy-associated plasma protein A2 (PAPP-A2) and activin A – when added to relevant clinical information have a better positive predictive value than and a comparable negative predictive value to the currently used ratio of soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) to placental growth factor (PlGF), new research suggests.

The third-trimester sFlt-1:PlGF ratio can predict short-term absence of preeclampsia. By contrast, PAPP-A2 and activin A could serve as biomarkers to predict the occurrence as well as the absence of preeclampsia, according to the authors.

Preeclampsia has “potentially devastating maternal and fetal complications, [including] significantly increased cardiovascular risk for affected women later in life,” study author Stella S. Daskalopoulou, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, said in an interview.

“A more accurate prediction of preeclampsia is expected to improve risk stratification and clinical care and shape clinical practice guidelines,” she said.

The study was published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Better predictive value

For a prospective cohort study, the investigators recruited 192 women with first-trimester high-risk singleton pregnancies from tertiary obstetric clinics in Montreal.

At baseline, they collected clinical information, including height, prepregnancy weight, personal and family medical history, and medication use.

At each trimester, blood pressure was measured, and blood samples were collected to quantify sFlt-1, PlGF, PAPP-A2, PAPP-A, activin A, inhibin A, follistatin, and glycosylated fibronectin. For the sFlt-1:PlGF ratio, the researchers used a cutoff point of 38, based on prior evidence. Because there are no agreed-upon cutoff points for the other biomarkers, they chose cutoff points that maximized sensitivity and specificity.

Pregnancies were considered high risk if the mother had any of the following conditions: prepregnancy BMI ≥ 25, maternal age ≥ 35 years, chronic hypertension, diabetes, renal disease, conception via in vitro fertilization, or maternal or first-degree family history of preeclampsia.

The primary outcome was preeclampsia, which was defined according to the Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology guidelines as systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure of ≥ mm Hg together with either proteinuria or maternal end-organ dysfunction.

A total of 18 women (9.38%) developed preeclampsia. Those women had higher blood pressure at baseline (although it was within normal limits) and were more likely to have preexisting diabetes or a previous pregnancy with preeclampsia. They were also more likely to report Black race. Serum levels of PAPP-A, PAPP-A2, activin A, and inhibin A were significantly different between patients who developed preeclampsia and those who did not. These levels were increased throughout pregnancy.

Alongside the sFlt-1:PlGF ratio, two biomarkers, PAPP-A2 (odds ratio, 1.78) and activin A (OR, 1.84), were significantly associated with the primary outcome after adjustment for age, prepregnancy BMI, race, and mean arterial pressure.

When added to a model that included those clinical factors, a positive third-trimester result for both PAPP-A2 and activin A had a better positive predictive value than the sFlt-1:PlGF ratio added to the clinical model (91.67% vs. 66.67%). The two biomarkers also had a negative predictive value that was comparable to that of the sFlt-1:PlGF ratio (97.69% vs. 96%).

Study limitations include the small sample size and missing covariates for some participants. Furthermore, the findings cannot be generalized to low-risk populations.

“Whereas the third-trimester sFlt-1:PlGF ratio can predict short-term absence of preeclampsia, PAPP-A2 and activin A had both high positive and negative predictive values and thus could serve as biomarkers to predict the occurrence (and absence) of preeclampsia; these findings will be validated in future studies,” the authors concluded.

Dr. Daskalopoulou said that her group is currently performing a large multinational study, PULSE, “which will be the ideal platform to validate and extend our findings. The aim of the study is to predict preeclampsia using a multimodal approach that includes arterial stiffness measurements and blood biomarkers.”

She expanded on the potential benefits of this research. “Finding an accurate predictive tool would not only help design appropriate early care plans for truly high-risk pregnant women, including monitoring and delivery planning, but also facilitate the development of novel strategies for the prevention and treatment of preeclampsia, improving the life of millions of young mothers and their offspring around the world.”
 

Promising biomarkers

Commenting on the study, Nieca Goldberg, MD, clinical associate professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health and medical director of Atria, both in New York, said, “These biomarkers are promising, as the current biomarker, sFlt-1:PlGF, is good at ruling out preeclampsia in the short term, while the new biomarkers show that they are better at ruling in preeclampsia” as well as ruling it out. Dr. Goldberg was not involved in the research.

“The current study is small, some participant data points are missing, and the researchers only studied high-risk pregnancies,” she added. “We need larger studies of all the risk markers, in both high- and low-risk pregnancies that are followed throughout pregnancy.”

This work was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec Santé (FRQS), Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, McGill University Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Academic Enrichment Fund, and Canadian Foundation for Women›s Health. Dr. Daskalopoulou is a senior clinician-scientist supported by a FRQS Clinician Scientist-Senior salary award. Dr. Daskalopoulou and Dr. Goldberg disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two biomarkers – pregnancy-associated plasma protein A2 (PAPP-A2) and activin A – when added to relevant clinical information have a better positive predictive value than and a comparable negative predictive value to the currently used ratio of soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) to placental growth factor (PlGF), new research suggests.

The third-trimester sFlt-1:PlGF ratio can predict short-term absence of preeclampsia. By contrast, PAPP-A2 and activin A could serve as biomarkers to predict the occurrence as well as the absence of preeclampsia, according to the authors.

Preeclampsia has “potentially devastating maternal and fetal complications, [including] significantly increased cardiovascular risk for affected women later in life,” study author Stella S. Daskalopoulou, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, said in an interview.

“A more accurate prediction of preeclampsia is expected to improve risk stratification and clinical care and shape clinical practice guidelines,” she said.

The study was published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Better predictive value

For a prospective cohort study, the investigators recruited 192 women with first-trimester high-risk singleton pregnancies from tertiary obstetric clinics in Montreal.

At baseline, they collected clinical information, including height, prepregnancy weight, personal and family medical history, and medication use.

At each trimester, blood pressure was measured, and blood samples were collected to quantify sFlt-1, PlGF, PAPP-A2, PAPP-A, activin A, inhibin A, follistatin, and glycosylated fibronectin. For the sFlt-1:PlGF ratio, the researchers used a cutoff point of 38, based on prior evidence. Because there are no agreed-upon cutoff points for the other biomarkers, they chose cutoff points that maximized sensitivity and specificity.

Pregnancies were considered high risk if the mother had any of the following conditions: prepregnancy BMI ≥ 25, maternal age ≥ 35 years, chronic hypertension, diabetes, renal disease, conception via in vitro fertilization, or maternal or first-degree family history of preeclampsia.

The primary outcome was preeclampsia, which was defined according to the Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology guidelines as systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure of ≥ mm Hg together with either proteinuria or maternal end-organ dysfunction.

A total of 18 women (9.38%) developed preeclampsia. Those women had higher blood pressure at baseline (although it was within normal limits) and were more likely to have preexisting diabetes or a previous pregnancy with preeclampsia. They were also more likely to report Black race. Serum levels of PAPP-A, PAPP-A2, activin A, and inhibin A were significantly different between patients who developed preeclampsia and those who did not. These levels were increased throughout pregnancy.

Alongside the sFlt-1:PlGF ratio, two biomarkers, PAPP-A2 (odds ratio, 1.78) and activin A (OR, 1.84), were significantly associated with the primary outcome after adjustment for age, prepregnancy BMI, race, and mean arterial pressure.

When added to a model that included those clinical factors, a positive third-trimester result for both PAPP-A2 and activin A had a better positive predictive value than the sFlt-1:PlGF ratio added to the clinical model (91.67% vs. 66.67%). The two biomarkers also had a negative predictive value that was comparable to that of the sFlt-1:PlGF ratio (97.69% vs. 96%).

Study limitations include the small sample size and missing covariates for some participants. Furthermore, the findings cannot be generalized to low-risk populations.

“Whereas the third-trimester sFlt-1:PlGF ratio can predict short-term absence of preeclampsia, PAPP-A2 and activin A had both high positive and negative predictive values and thus could serve as biomarkers to predict the occurrence (and absence) of preeclampsia; these findings will be validated in future studies,” the authors concluded.

Dr. Daskalopoulou said that her group is currently performing a large multinational study, PULSE, “which will be the ideal platform to validate and extend our findings. The aim of the study is to predict preeclampsia using a multimodal approach that includes arterial stiffness measurements and blood biomarkers.”

She expanded on the potential benefits of this research. “Finding an accurate predictive tool would not only help design appropriate early care plans for truly high-risk pregnant women, including monitoring and delivery planning, but also facilitate the development of novel strategies for the prevention and treatment of preeclampsia, improving the life of millions of young mothers and their offspring around the world.”
 

Promising biomarkers

Commenting on the study, Nieca Goldberg, MD, clinical associate professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health and medical director of Atria, both in New York, said, “These biomarkers are promising, as the current biomarker, sFlt-1:PlGF, is good at ruling out preeclampsia in the short term, while the new biomarkers show that they are better at ruling in preeclampsia” as well as ruling it out. Dr. Goldberg was not involved in the research.

“The current study is small, some participant data points are missing, and the researchers only studied high-risk pregnancies,” she added. “We need larger studies of all the risk markers, in both high- and low-risk pregnancies that are followed throughout pregnancy.”

This work was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec Santé (FRQS), Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, McGill University Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Academic Enrichment Fund, and Canadian Foundation for Women›s Health. Dr. Daskalopoulou is a senior clinician-scientist supported by a FRQS Clinician Scientist-Senior salary award. Dr. Daskalopoulou and Dr. Goldberg disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two biomarkers – pregnancy-associated plasma protein A2 (PAPP-A2) and activin A – when added to relevant clinical information have a better positive predictive value than and a comparable negative predictive value to the currently used ratio of soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) to placental growth factor (PlGF), new research suggests.

The third-trimester sFlt-1:PlGF ratio can predict short-term absence of preeclampsia. By contrast, PAPP-A2 and activin A could serve as biomarkers to predict the occurrence as well as the absence of preeclampsia, according to the authors.

Preeclampsia has “potentially devastating maternal and fetal complications, [including] significantly increased cardiovascular risk for affected women later in life,” study author Stella S. Daskalopoulou, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, said in an interview.

“A more accurate prediction of preeclampsia is expected to improve risk stratification and clinical care and shape clinical practice guidelines,” she said.

The study was published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Better predictive value

For a prospective cohort study, the investigators recruited 192 women with first-trimester high-risk singleton pregnancies from tertiary obstetric clinics in Montreal.

At baseline, they collected clinical information, including height, prepregnancy weight, personal and family medical history, and medication use.

At each trimester, blood pressure was measured, and blood samples were collected to quantify sFlt-1, PlGF, PAPP-A2, PAPP-A, activin A, inhibin A, follistatin, and glycosylated fibronectin. For the sFlt-1:PlGF ratio, the researchers used a cutoff point of 38, based on prior evidence. Because there are no agreed-upon cutoff points for the other biomarkers, they chose cutoff points that maximized sensitivity and specificity.

Pregnancies were considered high risk if the mother had any of the following conditions: prepregnancy BMI ≥ 25, maternal age ≥ 35 years, chronic hypertension, diabetes, renal disease, conception via in vitro fertilization, or maternal or first-degree family history of preeclampsia.

The primary outcome was preeclampsia, which was defined according to the Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology guidelines as systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure of ≥ mm Hg together with either proteinuria or maternal end-organ dysfunction.

A total of 18 women (9.38%) developed preeclampsia. Those women had higher blood pressure at baseline (although it was within normal limits) and were more likely to have preexisting diabetes or a previous pregnancy with preeclampsia. They were also more likely to report Black race. Serum levels of PAPP-A, PAPP-A2, activin A, and inhibin A were significantly different between patients who developed preeclampsia and those who did not. These levels were increased throughout pregnancy.

Alongside the sFlt-1:PlGF ratio, two biomarkers, PAPP-A2 (odds ratio, 1.78) and activin A (OR, 1.84), were significantly associated with the primary outcome after adjustment for age, prepregnancy BMI, race, and mean arterial pressure.

When added to a model that included those clinical factors, a positive third-trimester result for both PAPP-A2 and activin A had a better positive predictive value than the sFlt-1:PlGF ratio added to the clinical model (91.67% vs. 66.67%). The two biomarkers also had a negative predictive value that was comparable to that of the sFlt-1:PlGF ratio (97.69% vs. 96%).

Study limitations include the small sample size and missing covariates for some participants. Furthermore, the findings cannot be generalized to low-risk populations.

“Whereas the third-trimester sFlt-1:PlGF ratio can predict short-term absence of preeclampsia, PAPP-A2 and activin A had both high positive and negative predictive values and thus could serve as biomarkers to predict the occurrence (and absence) of preeclampsia; these findings will be validated in future studies,” the authors concluded.

Dr. Daskalopoulou said that her group is currently performing a large multinational study, PULSE, “which will be the ideal platform to validate and extend our findings. The aim of the study is to predict preeclampsia using a multimodal approach that includes arterial stiffness measurements and blood biomarkers.”

She expanded on the potential benefits of this research. “Finding an accurate predictive tool would not only help design appropriate early care plans for truly high-risk pregnant women, including monitoring and delivery planning, but also facilitate the development of novel strategies for the prevention and treatment of preeclampsia, improving the life of millions of young mothers and their offspring around the world.”
 

Promising biomarkers

Commenting on the study, Nieca Goldberg, MD, clinical associate professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health and medical director of Atria, both in New York, said, “These biomarkers are promising, as the current biomarker, sFlt-1:PlGF, is good at ruling out preeclampsia in the short term, while the new biomarkers show that they are better at ruling in preeclampsia” as well as ruling it out. Dr. Goldberg was not involved in the research.

“The current study is small, some participant data points are missing, and the researchers only studied high-risk pregnancies,” she added. “We need larger studies of all the risk markers, in both high- and low-risk pregnancies that are followed throughout pregnancy.”

This work was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec Santé (FRQS), Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, McGill University Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Academic Enrichment Fund, and Canadian Foundation for Women›s Health. Dr. Daskalopoulou is a senior clinician-scientist supported by a FRQS Clinician Scientist-Senior salary award. Dr. Daskalopoulou and Dr. Goldberg disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence can accurately predict the optimal retrieval date in fertility treatment cycles, according to preliminary research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. According to the researchers, such an algorithm is needed due to the increased demand for fertility treatments, as well as the high day-to-day variability in lab workload.

According to the study investigators, predicting retrieval dates in advance for ongoing cycles is of major importance for both patients and clinicians.

“The population requiring fertility treatments, including genetic testing and fertility preservation, has massively increased, and this causes many more cycles and a high day-to-day variability in IVF activity, especially in the lab workload,” said Rohi Hourvitz, MBA, from FertilAI, an Israeli health care company focused on developing technologies that improve fertility treatments.

“We also need to accommodate and reschedule for non-working days, which causes a big issue with managing the workload in many clinics around the world,” added Mr. Hourvitz, who presented the research highlighting AI’s growing role in reproductive medicine.

In addition, AI has recently emerged as an effective tool for assisting in clinical decision-making in assisted reproductive technology, prompting further research in this space, he said.

The new study used a dataset of 9,550 predictable antagonist cycles (defined as having all necessary data) gathered from one lab with over 50 physicians between August 2018 and October 2022. The data were split into two subsets: one for training the AI model and the other for prospective testing. 

To train and test the AI model, data from nearly 6,000 predictable antagonist cycles were used. Key factors used for each cycle included estrogen levels, mean follicle size, primary follicle size, and various patient demographics. Other features were considered, but Mr. Hourvitz noted that primary follicle size influenced the algorithm most, “because that is what most of us use when we want to trigger.”

Mr. Hourvitz explained that these patient data were run through an algorithm that produced a graph predicting the most probable date for a cycle retrieval.

“We could accurately predict when those ‘peak days’ were going to be happening in the clinic, and we could also give a pretty good estimate on how many cycles you’re going to have every day,” Mr. Hourvitz said, explaining that this information could help clinics more efficiently allocate resources and manage patients.

According to Mr. Hourvitz, the predictions derived from this study could improve various aspects of fertility treatments and related procedures, including better staff planning and caseload management in IVF labs, as well as higher-quality eggs at retrieval. Patients would have a clearer timeline for their treatment cycles.   

Nikica Zaninovic, PhD, MS, director of the embryology lab at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, cautioned that the new findings are not yet ready for clinical application but emphasized the importance of more AI research focusing on the quality of oocytes, not only embryos.

“We’re so focused on the end of the process: the embryo,” Dr. Zaninovic, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “I think the focus should be on the beginning – the quality of eggs and sperm, not just the quantity – because that’s what the embryos will depend on.”

He noted the increasing numbers of young women in the United States undergoing egg freezing.

“Cornell is the largest academic IVF center in the United States; 20%-30% of all of the patients that we treat are actually freezing their eggs,” he said. “It’s a huge population.”

“When they come to us, they ask how many eggs they’ll need to guarantee one or two children in the future,” Dr. Zaninovic continued. “We don’t have that answer, so we always tell them [we’ll retrieve] as many as we can. That’s not the answer; we need to be more precise. We’re still lacking these tools, and I think that’s where the research will go.”

The study was funded by FertilAI. Mr. Hourvitz is a shareholder and CEO of FertilAI. Dr. Zaninovic is president of the AI Fertility Society.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence can accurately predict the optimal retrieval date in fertility treatment cycles, according to preliminary research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. According to the researchers, such an algorithm is needed due to the increased demand for fertility treatments, as well as the high day-to-day variability in lab workload.

According to the study investigators, predicting retrieval dates in advance for ongoing cycles is of major importance for both patients and clinicians.

“The population requiring fertility treatments, including genetic testing and fertility preservation, has massively increased, and this causes many more cycles and a high day-to-day variability in IVF activity, especially in the lab workload,” said Rohi Hourvitz, MBA, from FertilAI, an Israeli health care company focused on developing technologies that improve fertility treatments.

“We also need to accommodate and reschedule for non-working days, which causes a big issue with managing the workload in many clinics around the world,” added Mr. Hourvitz, who presented the research highlighting AI’s growing role in reproductive medicine.

In addition, AI has recently emerged as an effective tool for assisting in clinical decision-making in assisted reproductive technology, prompting further research in this space, he said.

The new study used a dataset of 9,550 predictable antagonist cycles (defined as having all necessary data) gathered from one lab with over 50 physicians between August 2018 and October 2022. The data were split into two subsets: one for training the AI model and the other for prospective testing. 

To train and test the AI model, data from nearly 6,000 predictable antagonist cycles were used. Key factors used for each cycle included estrogen levels, mean follicle size, primary follicle size, and various patient demographics. Other features were considered, but Mr. Hourvitz noted that primary follicle size influenced the algorithm most, “because that is what most of us use when we want to trigger.”

Mr. Hourvitz explained that these patient data were run through an algorithm that produced a graph predicting the most probable date for a cycle retrieval.

“We could accurately predict when those ‘peak days’ were going to be happening in the clinic, and we could also give a pretty good estimate on how many cycles you’re going to have every day,” Mr. Hourvitz said, explaining that this information could help clinics more efficiently allocate resources and manage patients.

According to Mr. Hourvitz, the predictions derived from this study could improve various aspects of fertility treatments and related procedures, including better staff planning and caseload management in IVF labs, as well as higher-quality eggs at retrieval. Patients would have a clearer timeline for their treatment cycles.   

Nikica Zaninovic, PhD, MS, director of the embryology lab at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, cautioned that the new findings are not yet ready for clinical application but emphasized the importance of more AI research focusing on the quality of oocytes, not only embryos.

“We’re so focused on the end of the process: the embryo,” Dr. Zaninovic, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “I think the focus should be on the beginning – the quality of eggs and sperm, not just the quantity – because that’s what the embryos will depend on.”

He noted the increasing numbers of young women in the United States undergoing egg freezing.

“Cornell is the largest academic IVF center in the United States; 20%-30% of all of the patients that we treat are actually freezing their eggs,” he said. “It’s a huge population.”

“When they come to us, they ask how many eggs they’ll need to guarantee one or two children in the future,” Dr. Zaninovic continued. “We don’t have that answer, so we always tell them [we’ll retrieve] as many as we can. That’s not the answer; we need to be more precise. We’re still lacking these tools, and I think that’s where the research will go.”

The study was funded by FertilAI. Mr. Hourvitz is a shareholder and CEO of FertilAI. Dr. Zaninovic is president of the AI Fertility Society.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence can accurately predict the optimal retrieval date in fertility treatment cycles, according to preliminary research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. According to the researchers, such an algorithm is needed due to the increased demand for fertility treatments, as well as the high day-to-day variability in lab workload.

According to the study investigators, predicting retrieval dates in advance for ongoing cycles is of major importance for both patients and clinicians.

“The population requiring fertility treatments, including genetic testing and fertility preservation, has massively increased, and this causes many more cycles and a high day-to-day variability in IVF activity, especially in the lab workload,” said Rohi Hourvitz, MBA, from FertilAI, an Israeli health care company focused on developing technologies that improve fertility treatments.

“We also need to accommodate and reschedule for non-working days, which causes a big issue with managing the workload in many clinics around the world,” added Mr. Hourvitz, who presented the research highlighting AI’s growing role in reproductive medicine.

In addition, AI has recently emerged as an effective tool for assisting in clinical decision-making in assisted reproductive technology, prompting further research in this space, he said.

The new study used a dataset of 9,550 predictable antagonist cycles (defined as having all necessary data) gathered from one lab with over 50 physicians between August 2018 and October 2022. The data were split into two subsets: one for training the AI model and the other for prospective testing. 

To train and test the AI model, data from nearly 6,000 predictable antagonist cycles were used. Key factors used for each cycle included estrogen levels, mean follicle size, primary follicle size, and various patient demographics. Other features were considered, but Mr. Hourvitz noted that primary follicle size influenced the algorithm most, “because that is what most of us use when we want to trigger.”

Mr. Hourvitz explained that these patient data were run through an algorithm that produced a graph predicting the most probable date for a cycle retrieval.

“We could accurately predict when those ‘peak days’ were going to be happening in the clinic, and we could also give a pretty good estimate on how many cycles you’re going to have every day,” Mr. Hourvitz said, explaining that this information could help clinics more efficiently allocate resources and manage patients.

According to Mr. Hourvitz, the predictions derived from this study could improve various aspects of fertility treatments and related procedures, including better staff planning and caseload management in IVF labs, as well as higher-quality eggs at retrieval. Patients would have a clearer timeline for their treatment cycles.   

Nikica Zaninovic, PhD, MS, director of the embryology lab at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, cautioned that the new findings are not yet ready for clinical application but emphasized the importance of more AI research focusing on the quality of oocytes, not only embryos.

“We’re so focused on the end of the process: the embryo,” Dr. Zaninovic, who was not involved in the research, said in an interview. “I think the focus should be on the beginning – the quality of eggs and sperm, not just the quantity – because that’s what the embryos will depend on.”

He noted the increasing numbers of young women in the United States undergoing egg freezing.

“Cornell is the largest academic IVF center in the United States; 20%-30% of all of the patients that we treat are actually freezing their eggs,” he said. “It’s a huge population.”

“When they come to us, they ask how many eggs they’ll need to guarantee one or two children in the future,” Dr. Zaninovic continued. “We don’t have that answer, so we always tell them [we’ll retrieve] as many as we can. That’s not the answer; we need to be more precise. We’re still lacking these tools, and I think that’s where the research will go.”

The study was funded by FertilAI. Mr. Hourvitz is a shareholder and CEO of FertilAI. Dr. Zaninovic is president of the AI Fertility Society.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’d like to talk with you about a recent report from the large-scale Black Women’s Health Study, published in the new journal NEJM Evidence.

This study looked at the association between hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including preeclampsia and gestational hypertension, and the risk for stroke over the next 20 (median, 22) years. Previous studies have linked hypertensive disorders of pregnancy with an increased risk for stroke. However, most of these studies have been done in White women of European ancestry, and evidence in Black women has been very limited, despite a disproportionately high risk of having a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and also of stroke.

This study, in more than 40,000 U.S. women, found an increased risk for subsequent stroke among women with a prior history of hypertensive disorder of pregnancy – overall, a 66% increased risk, an 80% increased risk with gestational hypertension, and about a 50% increased risk with preeclampsia.

We know that pregnancy itself can lead to some remodeling of the vascular system, but we don’t know whether a direct causal relationship exists between preeclampsia or gestational hypertension and subsequent stroke. Another potential explanation is that these complications of pregnancy serve as a window into a woman’s future cardiometabolic health and a marker of her cardiovascular risk.

Regardless, the clinical implications are the same. First, we would want to prevent these complications of pregnancy whenever possible. Some women will be candidates for the use of aspirin if they are at high risk for preeclampsia, and certainly for monitoring blood pressure very closely during pregnancy. It will also be important to maintain blood pressure control in the postpartum period and during the subsequent years of adulthood to minimize risk for stroke, because hypertension is such a powerful risk factor for stroke.

It will also be tremendously important to intensify lifestyle modifications such as increasing physical activity and having a heart-healthy diet. These complications of pregnancy have also been linked in other studies to an increased risk for subsequent coronary heart disease events and heart failure.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Manson is professor of medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, and chief of the division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and past president, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012. She disclosed receiving study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’d like to talk with you about a recent report from the large-scale Black Women’s Health Study, published in the new journal NEJM Evidence.

This study looked at the association between hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including preeclampsia and gestational hypertension, and the risk for stroke over the next 20 (median, 22) years. Previous studies have linked hypertensive disorders of pregnancy with an increased risk for stroke. However, most of these studies have been done in White women of European ancestry, and evidence in Black women has been very limited, despite a disproportionately high risk of having a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and also of stroke.

This study, in more than 40,000 U.S. women, found an increased risk for subsequent stroke among women with a prior history of hypertensive disorder of pregnancy – overall, a 66% increased risk, an 80% increased risk with gestational hypertension, and about a 50% increased risk with preeclampsia.

We know that pregnancy itself can lead to some remodeling of the vascular system, but we don’t know whether a direct causal relationship exists between preeclampsia or gestational hypertension and subsequent stroke. Another potential explanation is that these complications of pregnancy serve as a window into a woman’s future cardiometabolic health and a marker of her cardiovascular risk.

Regardless, the clinical implications are the same. First, we would want to prevent these complications of pregnancy whenever possible. Some women will be candidates for the use of aspirin if they are at high risk for preeclampsia, and certainly for monitoring blood pressure very closely during pregnancy. It will also be important to maintain blood pressure control in the postpartum period and during the subsequent years of adulthood to minimize risk for stroke, because hypertension is such a powerful risk factor for stroke.

It will also be tremendously important to intensify lifestyle modifications such as increasing physical activity and having a heart-healthy diet. These complications of pregnancy have also been linked in other studies to an increased risk for subsequent coronary heart disease events and heart failure.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Manson is professor of medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, and chief of the division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and past president, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012. She disclosed receiving study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’d like to talk with you about a recent report from the large-scale Black Women’s Health Study, published in the new journal NEJM Evidence.

This study looked at the association between hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including preeclampsia and gestational hypertension, and the risk for stroke over the next 20 (median, 22) years. Previous studies have linked hypertensive disorders of pregnancy with an increased risk for stroke. However, most of these studies have been done in White women of European ancestry, and evidence in Black women has been very limited, despite a disproportionately high risk of having a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and also of stroke.

This study, in more than 40,000 U.S. women, found an increased risk for subsequent stroke among women with a prior history of hypertensive disorder of pregnancy – overall, a 66% increased risk, an 80% increased risk with gestational hypertension, and about a 50% increased risk with preeclampsia.

We know that pregnancy itself can lead to some remodeling of the vascular system, but we don’t know whether a direct causal relationship exists between preeclampsia or gestational hypertension and subsequent stroke. Another potential explanation is that these complications of pregnancy serve as a window into a woman’s future cardiometabolic health and a marker of her cardiovascular risk.

Regardless, the clinical implications are the same. First, we would want to prevent these complications of pregnancy whenever possible. Some women will be candidates for the use of aspirin if they are at high risk for preeclampsia, and certainly for monitoring blood pressure very closely during pregnancy. It will also be important to maintain blood pressure control in the postpartum period and during the subsequent years of adulthood to minimize risk for stroke, because hypertension is such a powerful risk factor for stroke.

It will also be tremendously important to intensify lifestyle modifications such as increasing physical activity and having a heart-healthy diet. These complications of pregnancy have also been linked in other studies to an increased risk for subsequent coronary heart disease events and heart failure.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Dr. Manson is professor of medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, and chief of the division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and past president, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012. She disclosed receiving study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

GLASGOW – An interactive digital decision tool that individualizes menopause care received praise from primary care clinicians in the United Kingdom, who said it could improve patient care and streamline office visits.

The tool, called Wellspring, helps clarify menopause guidelines from the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence while fostering shared decision-making with evidence-based data.  

“Access to hormone replacement therapy [HRT], as well as decision-making around treatment for menopausal symptoms, is often complicated by concerns around its safety, and there is still a knowledge and a confidence gap among health care professionals causing reluctance to prescribe HRT,”  said Aini Kamal, MSc, from University College London. Ms. Kamal presented results of a survey about the tool at the annual meeting of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

For the study, Ms. Kamal, Daniel Reisel, MBBS, PhD, a gynecologist at UCL, and colleagues evaluated Wellspring with doctors, nurses, and pharmacists.

“Ensuring that women receive education around symptoms, so that they are empowered, is a key part of optimizing their care and sharing decision-making,” Dr. Reisel said in an interview. He added that U.K. primary care had seen an increase in cases of women presenting with symptoms associated with the perimenopause and menopause at a time when U.K. Members of Parliament are debating whether to make it mandatory for all women to have menopause check-up in their early 40s.

The online survey was completed by 280 participants, and respondents were primarily GPs with several years of relevant prescribing practice. Of those, 93% found information from national guidelines to be accurately presented in the tool, and 97% said they would recommend this decision aid to other health care professionals, Ms. Kamal reported.

Nearly all participants said they could see themselves using the tool with patients in the clinic or as an adjunct to virtual sessions. “This [finding] was particularly important because it demonstrates the clinical potential this tool has,” she said.

 

One consult, too many problems

Louise Newson, MBChB, who runs the U.K.’s largest menopause clinic, said primary care appointments are often time-pressured and follow a “’one problem-one consultation’” policy. As such, women are often thinking ‘Do I go with my joint pains, or my palpitations, tinnitus, or what?’ If a patient presents with tinnitus, a doctor might focus on the potential of an inner ear problem rather than a hormone deficiency, but I do know that if the woman is perimenopausal or menopausal, we often look to replace the missing hormones, and then if the tinnitus doesn’t improve we can revisit the ear problem.” 

Dr. Newson noted that 17% of women in her clinics have had more than six GP visits in the year before she sees them, but in the year following, this figure drops to 1%. Acknowledging that a menopause consultation for a GP is time-consuming, Dr. Newson pointed out that taking time initially with the patient “means it will reduce the number of future consultations quickly, but more importantly, we also know that taking HRT reduces long-term risk of serious diseases, including heart disease and osteoporosis.”

The digital tool can be used by both doctors and patients to help women work through their symptoms and equip them with knowledge so their GP visits are more productive.

“When we see women who are empowered with knowledge [about menopause symptoms], then the consultations are quicker and essentially place the patient central to the discussion,” Dr. Newson said.

Ed Russell-Smith, MBChB, a GP in Scotland who moderated the session, said the tool “lays out a nicely structured approach and provides modern treatment options and resources for patients.”

However, he added “we also need to remember there are potential harms to be done from HRT too. It’s vitally important that while patients might see HRT as a panacea, doctors need to balance this with the risks involved for each individual. As a tool, I think Wellspring can help us in this respect to apply general principles to that patient and individualize treatment.”

Dr. Reisel, Dr. Newson, Ms. Kamal, and Dr. Russell-Smith disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The Wellspring Decision Aid was supported by UCL’s Institute for Women’s Health. The Newson Health clinic is fully private, but research is done via the nonprofit arm, which is supported by the clinic. There is no pharma involvement.

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

GLASGOW – An interactive digital decision tool that individualizes menopause care received praise from primary care clinicians in the United Kingdom, who said it could improve patient care and streamline office visits.

The tool, called Wellspring, helps clarify menopause guidelines from the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence while fostering shared decision-making with evidence-based data.  

“Access to hormone replacement therapy [HRT], as well as decision-making around treatment for menopausal symptoms, is often complicated by concerns around its safety, and there is still a knowledge and a confidence gap among health care professionals causing reluctance to prescribe HRT,”  said Aini Kamal, MSc, from University College London. Ms. Kamal presented results of a survey about the tool at the annual meeting of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

For the study, Ms. Kamal, Daniel Reisel, MBBS, PhD, a gynecologist at UCL, and colleagues evaluated Wellspring with doctors, nurses, and pharmacists.

“Ensuring that women receive education around symptoms, so that they are empowered, is a key part of optimizing their care and sharing decision-making,” Dr. Reisel said in an interview. He added that U.K. primary care had seen an increase in cases of women presenting with symptoms associated with the perimenopause and menopause at a time when U.K. Members of Parliament are debating whether to make it mandatory for all women to have menopause check-up in their early 40s.

The online survey was completed by 280 participants, and respondents were primarily GPs with several years of relevant prescribing practice. Of those, 93% found information from national guidelines to be accurately presented in the tool, and 97% said they would recommend this decision aid to other health care professionals, Ms. Kamal reported.

Nearly all participants said they could see themselves using the tool with patients in the clinic or as an adjunct to virtual sessions. “This [finding] was particularly important because it demonstrates the clinical potential this tool has,” she said.

 

One consult, too many problems

Louise Newson, MBChB, who runs the U.K.’s largest menopause clinic, said primary care appointments are often time-pressured and follow a “’one problem-one consultation’” policy. As such, women are often thinking ‘Do I go with my joint pains, or my palpitations, tinnitus, or what?’ If a patient presents with tinnitus, a doctor might focus on the potential of an inner ear problem rather than a hormone deficiency, but I do know that if the woman is perimenopausal or menopausal, we often look to replace the missing hormones, and then if the tinnitus doesn’t improve we can revisit the ear problem.” 

Dr. Newson noted that 17% of women in her clinics have had more than six GP visits in the year before she sees them, but in the year following, this figure drops to 1%. Acknowledging that a menopause consultation for a GP is time-consuming, Dr. Newson pointed out that taking time initially with the patient “means it will reduce the number of future consultations quickly, but more importantly, we also know that taking HRT reduces long-term risk of serious diseases, including heart disease and osteoporosis.”

The digital tool can be used by both doctors and patients to help women work through their symptoms and equip them with knowledge so their GP visits are more productive.

“When we see women who are empowered with knowledge [about menopause symptoms], then the consultations are quicker and essentially place the patient central to the discussion,” Dr. Newson said.

Ed Russell-Smith, MBChB, a GP in Scotland who moderated the session, said the tool “lays out a nicely structured approach and provides modern treatment options and resources for patients.”

However, he added “we also need to remember there are potential harms to be done from HRT too. It’s vitally important that while patients might see HRT as a panacea, doctors need to balance this with the risks involved for each individual. As a tool, I think Wellspring can help us in this respect to apply general principles to that patient and individualize treatment.”

Dr. Reisel, Dr. Newson, Ms. Kamal, and Dr. Russell-Smith disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The Wellspring Decision Aid was supported by UCL’s Institute for Women’s Health. The Newson Health clinic is fully private, but research is done via the nonprofit arm, which is supported by the clinic. There is no pharma involvement.

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

GLASGOW – An interactive digital decision tool that individualizes menopause care received praise from primary care clinicians in the United Kingdom, who said it could improve patient care and streamline office visits.

The tool, called Wellspring, helps clarify menopause guidelines from the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence while fostering shared decision-making with evidence-based data.  

“Access to hormone replacement therapy [HRT], as well as decision-making around treatment for menopausal symptoms, is often complicated by concerns around its safety, and there is still a knowledge and a confidence gap among health care professionals causing reluctance to prescribe HRT,”  said Aini Kamal, MSc, from University College London. Ms. Kamal presented results of a survey about the tool at the annual meeting of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

For the study, Ms. Kamal, Daniel Reisel, MBBS, PhD, a gynecologist at UCL, and colleagues evaluated Wellspring with doctors, nurses, and pharmacists.

“Ensuring that women receive education around symptoms, so that they are empowered, is a key part of optimizing their care and sharing decision-making,” Dr. Reisel said in an interview. He added that U.K. primary care had seen an increase in cases of women presenting with symptoms associated with the perimenopause and menopause at a time when U.K. Members of Parliament are debating whether to make it mandatory for all women to have menopause check-up in their early 40s.

The online survey was completed by 280 participants, and respondents were primarily GPs with several years of relevant prescribing practice. Of those, 93% found information from national guidelines to be accurately presented in the tool, and 97% said they would recommend this decision aid to other health care professionals, Ms. Kamal reported.

Nearly all participants said they could see themselves using the tool with patients in the clinic or as an adjunct to virtual sessions. “This [finding] was particularly important because it demonstrates the clinical potential this tool has,” she said.

 

One consult, too many problems

Louise Newson, MBChB, who runs the U.K.’s largest menopause clinic, said primary care appointments are often time-pressured and follow a “’one problem-one consultation’” policy. As such, women are often thinking ‘Do I go with my joint pains, or my palpitations, tinnitus, or what?’ If a patient presents with tinnitus, a doctor might focus on the potential of an inner ear problem rather than a hormone deficiency, but I do know that if the woman is perimenopausal or menopausal, we often look to replace the missing hormones, and then if the tinnitus doesn’t improve we can revisit the ear problem.” 

Dr. Newson noted that 17% of women in her clinics have had more than six GP visits in the year before she sees them, but in the year following, this figure drops to 1%. Acknowledging that a menopause consultation for a GP is time-consuming, Dr. Newson pointed out that taking time initially with the patient “means it will reduce the number of future consultations quickly, but more importantly, we also know that taking HRT reduces long-term risk of serious diseases, including heart disease and osteoporosis.”

The digital tool can be used by both doctors and patients to help women work through their symptoms and equip them with knowledge so their GP visits are more productive.

“When we see women who are empowered with knowledge [about menopause symptoms], then the consultations are quicker and essentially place the patient central to the discussion,” Dr. Newson said.

Ed Russell-Smith, MBChB, a GP in Scotland who moderated the session, said the tool “lays out a nicely structured approach and provides modern treatment options and resources for patients.”

However, he added “we also need to remember there are potential harms to be done from HRT too. It’s vitally important that while patients might see HRT as a panacea, doctors need to balance this with the risks involved for each individual. As a tool, I think Wellspring can help us in this respect to apply general principles to that patient and individualize treatment.”

Dr. Reisel, Dr. Newson, Ms. Kamal, and Dr. Russell-Smith disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The Wellspring Decision Aid was supported by UCL’s Institute for Women’s Health. The Newson Health clinic is fully private, but research is done via the nonprofit arm, which is supported by the clinic. There is no pharma involvement.

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

During a fellowship rotation in gynecology, Rebekah D. Fenton, MD, asked the attending physicians what pain management options they could offer patients for insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD). Their answer surprised her: None. 

The research on the effectiveness of pain management techniques during the procedure were not strong enough to warrant providing potential relief. 

But Dr. Fenton knew the attending physician was wrong: She’d received the drug lidocaine during a recent visit to her own ob.gyn. to get an IUD placed. The local anesthetic enabled her to avoid the experiences of many patients who often withstand debilitating cramping and pain during insertion, side effects that can last for hours after the procedure has ended.

By not teaching her how to administer pain treatment options such as lidocaine gel or injection, “they made the decision for me, whether I could give patients this option,” said Dr. Fenton, now an adolescent medicine specialist at Alivio Medical Center in Chicago.

Without clear guidelines, pain management decisions for routine gynecologic procedures are largely left up to individual clinicians. As a result, patients undergoing IUD placements, biopsies, hysteroscopies, and pelvic exams are often subject to pain that could be mitigated. 

Some research suggests simple numbing agents, including lidocaine, may induce less pain without the need for full anesthesia. But clinicians don’t always present these options.

During gynecologic procedures, the amount of pain a patient can expect is often downplayed by clinicians. Because every patient experiences the sensation differently, discussing options for pain management and the range of possible pain is paramount in building patient-clinician trust, and ultimately providing the best care for patients in the long run, according to Megan Wasson, DO, chair of the department of medical and surgical gynecology at Mayo Clinic Arizona in Phoenix. 

“It comes down to shared decision-making so the patient is aware of the pain that should be expected and what avenue they want to go down,” Dr. Wasson said. “It’s not a one-size-fits-all.”
 

Lack of uniform protocols

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has clear guidelines for pain management during pregnancy and delivery but not for many routine gynecologic procedures. Some experts say not offering options for pain management based on lack of efficacy evidence can undermine a patient’s experience. 

ACOG does have recommendations for reducing dilation pain during a hysteroscopy, including providing intravaginal misoprostol and estrogen. The organization also recommends performing a vaginoscopy instead if possible because the procedure is typically less painful than is a hysteroscopy. 

For an IUD placement, ACOG states that the procedure “may cause temporary discomfort” and recommends that patients take over-the-counter pain relief before a procedure. The most recent clinical bulletin on the topic, published in 2016, states routine misoprostol is not recommended for IUD placement, although it may be considered with difficult insertions for management of pain. 

A clinical inquiry published in 2020 outlined the efficacy of several pain options that practitioners can weigh with patients. The inquiry cited a 2019 meta-analysis of 38 studies that found lidocaine-prilocaine cream to be the most effective option for pain management during IUD placement, reducing insertion pain by nearly 30%. The inquiry concluded that a combination of 600 mcg of misoprostol and 4% lidocaine gel may be effective, while lower dosages of both drugs were not effective. A 2018 clinical trial cited in the analysis found that though a 20-cc 1% lidocaine paracervical block on its own did not reduce pain, the block mixed with sodium bicarbonate reduced pain during IUD insertion by 22%. 

Some doctors make the decision to not use lidocaine without offering it to patients first, according to Dr. Fenton. Instead, clinicians should discuss any potential drawbacks, such as pain from administering the numbing agent with a needle or the procedure taking extra time while the patient waits for the lidocaine to kick in. 

“That always felt unfair, to make that decision for [the patient],” Dr. Fenton said. 

Often clinicians won’t know how a patient will respond to a procedure: A 2014 secondary analysis of a clinical trial compared how patients rated their pain after an IUD procedure to the amount of pain physicians perceived the procedure to cause. They found that the average pain scores patients reported were nearly twice as high as clinician expectations were.

ACOG’s guideline states that the evidence backing paracervical blocks and lidocaine to IUD insertion pain is controversial. The American College of Physicians also cites “low-quality evidence” to support patient reports of pain and discomfort during pelvic exams. Some studies have found up to 60% of women report these negative experiences. 

The varying evidence highlights the need for a personalized approach – one that includes patients – to pain management for routine gynecological procedures.

“Usually patients are pretty good predictors,” said Lisa Bayer, MD, MPH, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. “They can anticipate what different things are going to feel like based on previous experiences.”
 

Making patients part of the discussion

Clinicians should have open discussions with patients about their past experiences and current anxieties about a gynecologic procedure, according to Dr. Bayer.

“Part of it is just creating a really safe environment of trust as a medical provider,” she said. 

A study published in 2016 of more than 800 patients undergoing oocyte retrieval, which has clear protocols for pain management, found that previous negative gynecologic experiences were significantly correlated to greater amounts of pain reported during the procedure. 

If pain isn’t properly managed, patients may avoid care in the future, putting them at risk for unplanned pregnancies, skipped cancer screenings, and complications from undiagnosed conditions and infections, Dr. Bayer added. Clinician offices will not always have access to all pain management options, so making referrals to another physician who has access to the appropriate technique may be the best thing for the patient, Dr. Bayer said. 


 

Downplaying the experience

Informing a patient that she will feel only a little discomfort during a procedure – when a clinician doesn’t know how exactly the patient will react – can also result in distrust. 

When a clinician says, “ ’It’s only going to be a little cramp, it’s only going to be a little pinch,’ we know extreme pain is a possibility, we’ve seen it,” Dr. Fenton said. “But if we choose to disregard that [possibility], it feels invalidating for patients.”

Failing to fully explain the possible pain scale can also directly interfere with the procedure at hand. 

“My first concern is if they aren’t anticipating the amount of pain they are going to experience, they may move; For biopsies and IUD insertions, we need them to be still,” Dr. Wasson said. “If they are unable to tolerate the procedure, we’ve put them through pain and not been able to accomplish the primary goal.”

Managing both pain and what patients can expect is even more crucial for adolescent and teenage patients who are often having their first gynecologic experience. 

“We’re framing what these experiences look like,” Dr. Fenton said. “That means there are opportunities for creating a space that builds trust and security for the patients moving forward.”
 

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

During a fellowship rotation in gynecology, Rebekah D. Fenton, MD, asked the attending physicians what pain management options they could offer patients for insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD). Their answer surprised her: None. 

The research on the effectiveness of pain management techniques during the procedure were not strong enough to warrant providing potential relief. 

But Dr. Fenton knew the attending physician was wrong: She’d received the drug lidocaine during a recent visit to her own ob.gyn. to get an IUD placed. The local anesthetic enabled her to avoid the experiences of many patients who often withstand debilitating cramping and pain during insertion, side effects that can last for hours after the procedure has ended.

By not teaching her how to administer pain treatment options such as lidocaine gel or injection, “they made the decision for me, whether I could give patients this option,” said Dr. Fenton, now an adolescent medicine specialist at Alivio Medical Center in Chicago.

Without clear guidelines, pain management decisions for routine gynecologic procedures are largely left up to individual clinicians. As a result, patients undergoing IUD placements, biopsies, hysteroscopies, and pelvic exams are often subject to pain that could be mitigated. 

Some research suggests simple numbing agents, including lidocaine, may induce less pain without the need for full anesthesia. But clinicians don’t always present these options.

During gynecologic procedures, the amount of pain a patient can expect is often downplayed by clinicians. Because every patient experiences the sensation differently, discussing options for pain management and the range of possible pain is paramount in building patient-clinician trust, and ultimately providing the best care for patients in the long run, according to Megan Wasson, DO, chair of the department of medical and surgical gynecology at Mayo Clinic Arizona in Phoenix. 

“It comes down to shared decision-making so the patient is aware of the pain that should be expected and what avenue they want to go down,” Dr. Wasson said. “It’s not a one-size-fits-all.”
 

Lack of uniform protocols

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has clear guidelines for pain management during pregnancy and delivery but not for many routine gynecologic procedures. Some experts say not offering options for pain management based on lack of efficacy evidence can undermine a patient’s experience. 

ACOG does have recommendations for reducing dilation pain during a hysteroscopy, including providing intravaginal misoprostol and estrogen. The organization also recommends performing a vaginoscopy instead if possible because the procedure is typically less painful than is a hysteroscopy. 

For an IUD placement, ACOG states that the procedure “may cause temporary discomfort” and recommends that patients take over-the-counter pain relief before a procedure. The most recent clinical bulletin on the topic, published in 2016, states routine misoprostol is not recommended for IUD placement, although it may be considered with difficult insertions for management of pain. 

A clinical inquiry published in 2020 outlined the efficacy of several pain options that practitioners can weigh with patients. The inquiry cited a 2019 meta-analysis of 38 studies that found lidocaine-prilocaine cream to be the most effective option for pain management during IUD placement, reducing insertion pain by nearly 30%. The inquiry concluded that a combination of 600 mcg of misoprostol and 4% lidocaine gel may be effective, while lower dosages of both drugs were not effective. A 2018 clinical trial cited in the analysis found that though a 20-cc 1% lidocaine paracervical block on its own did not reduce pain, the block mixed with sodium bicarbonate reduced pain during IUD insertion by 22%. 

Some doctors make the decision to not use lidocaine without offering it to patients first, according to Dr. Fenton. Instead, clinicians should discuss any potential drawbacks, such as pain from administering the numbing agent with a needle or the procedure taking extra time while the patient waits for the lidocaine to kick in. 

“That always felt unfair, to make that decision for [the patient],” Dr. Fenton said. 

Often clinicians won’t know how a patient will respond to a procedure: A 2014 secondary analysis of a clinical trial compared how patients rated their pain after an IUD procedure to the amount of pain physicians perceived the procedure to cause. They found that the average pain scores patients reported were nearly twice as high as clinician expectations were.

ACOG’s guideline states that the evidence backing paracervical blocks and lidocaine to IUD insertion pain is controversial. The American College of Physicians also cites “low-quality evidence” to support patient reports of pain and discomfort during pelvic exams. Some studies have found up to 60% of women report these negative experiences. 

The varying evidence highlights the need for a personalized approach – one that includes patients – to pain management for routine gynecological procedures.

“Usually patients are pretty good predictors,” said Lisa Bayer, MD, MPH, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. “They can anticipate what different things are going to feel like based on previous experiences.”
 

Making patients part of the discussion

Clinicians should have open discussions with patients about their past experiences and current anxieties about a gynecologic procedure, according to Dr. Bayer.

“Part of it is just creating a really safe environment of trust as a medical provider,” she said. 

A study published in 2016 of more than 800 patients undergoing oocyte retrieval, which has clear protocols for pain management, found that previous negative gynecologic experiences were significantly correlated to greater amounts of pain reported during the procedure. 

If pain isn’t properly managed, patients may avoid care in the future, putting them at risk for unplanned pregnancies, skipped cancer screenings, and complications from undiagnosed conditions and infections, Dr. Bayer added. Clinician offices will not always have access to all pain management options, so making referrals to another physician who has access to the appropriate technique may be the best thing for the patient, Dr. Bayer said. 


 

Downplaying the experience

Informing a patient that she will feel only a little discomfort during a procedure – when a clinician doesn’t know how exactly the patient will react – can also result in distrust. 

When a clinician says, “ ’It’s only going to be a little cramp, it’s only going to be a little pinch,’ we know extreme pain is a possibility, we’ve seen it,” Dr. Fenton said. “But if we choose to disregard that [possibility], it feels invalidating for patients.”

Failing to fully explain the possible pain scale can also directly interfere with the procedure at hand. 

“My first concern is if they aren’t anticipating the amount of pain they are going to experience, they may move; For biopsies and IUD insertions, we need them to be still,” Dr. Wasson said. “If they are unable to tolerate the procedure, we’ve put them through pain and not been able to accomplish the primary goal.”

Managing both pain and what patients can expect is even more crucial for adolescent and teenage patients who are often having their first gynecologic experience. 

“We’re framing what these experiences look like,” Dr. Fenton said. “That means there are opportunities for creating a space that builds trust and security for the patients moving forward.”
 

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

During a fellowship rotation in gynecology, Rebekah D. Fenton, MD, asked the attending physicians what pain management options they could offer patients for insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD). Their answer surprised her: None. 

The research on the effectiveness of pain management techniques during the procedure were not strong enough to warrant providing potential relief. 

But Dr. Fenton knew the attending physician was wrong: She’d received the drug lidocaine during a recent visit to her own ob.gyn. to get an IUD placed. The local anesthetic enabled her to avoid the experiences of many patients who often withstand debilitating cramping and pain during insertion, side effects that can last for hours after the procedure has ended.

By not teaching her how to administer pain treatment options such as lidocaine gel or injection, “they made the decision for me, whether I could give patients this option,” said Dr. Fenton, now an adolescent medicine specialist at Alivio Medical Center in Chicago.

Without clear guidelines, pain management decisions for routine gynecologic procedures are largely left up to individual clinicians. As a result, patients undergoing IUD placements, biopsies, hysteroscopies, and pelvic exams are often subject to pain that could be mitigated. 

Some research suggests simple numbing agents, including lidocaine, may induce less pain without the need for full anesthesia. But clinicians don’t always present these options.

During gynecologic procedures, the amount of pain a patient can expect is often downplayed by clinicians. Because every patient experiences the sensation differently, discussing options for pain management and the range of possible pain is paramount in building patient-clinician trust, and ultimately providing the best care for patients in the long run, according to Megan Wasson, DO, chair of the department of medical and surgical gynecology at Mayo Clinic Arizona in Phoenix. 

“It comes down to shared decision-making so the patient is aware of the pain that should be expected and what avenue they want to go down,” Dr. Wasson said. “It’s not a one-size-fits-all.”
 

Lack of uniform protocols

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has clear guidelines for pain management during pregnancy and delivery but not for many routine gynecologic procedures. Some experts say not offering options for pain management based on lack of efficacy evidence can undermine a patient’s experience. 

ACOG does have recommendations for reducing dilation pain during a hysteroscopy, including providing intravaginal misoprostol and estrogen. The organization also recommends performing a vaginoscopy instead if possible because the procedure is typically less painful than is a hysteroscopy. 

For an IUD placement, ACOG states that the procedure “may cause temporary discomfort” and recommends that patients take over-the-counter pain relief before a procedure. The most recent clinical bulletin on the topic, published in 2016, states routine misoprostol is not recommended for IUD placement, although it may be considered with difficult insertions for management of pain. 

A clinical inquiry published in 2020 outlined the efficacy of several pain options that practitioners can weigh with patients. The inquiry cited a 2019 meta-analysis of 38 studies that found lidocaine-prilocaine cream to be the most effective option for pain management during IUD placement, reducing insertion pain by nearly 30%. The inquiry concluded that a combination of 600 mcg of misoprostol and 4% lidocaine gel may be effective, while lower dosages of both drugs were not effective. A 2018 clinical trial cited in the analysis found that though a 20-cc 1% lidocaine paracervical block on its own did not reduce pain, the block mixed with sodium bicarbonate reduced pain during IUD insertion by 22%. 

Some doctors make the decision to not use lidocaine without offering it to patients first, according to Dr. Fenton. Instead, clinicians should discuss any potential drawbacks, such as pain from administering the numbing agent with a needle or the procedure taking extra time while the patient waits for the lidocaine to kick in. 

“That always felt unfair, to make that decision for [the patient],” Dr. Fenton said. 

Often clinicians won’t know how a patient will respond to a procedure: A 2014 secondary analysis of a clinical trial compared how patients rated their pain after an IUD procedure to the amount of pain physicians perceived the procedure to cause. They found that the average pain scores patients reported were nearly twice as high as clinician expectations were.

ACOG’s guideline states that the evidence backing paracervical blocks and lidocaine to IUD insertion pain is controversial. The American College of Physicians also cites “low-quality evidence” to support patient reports of pain and discomfort during pelvic exams. Some studies have found up to 60% of women report these negative experiences. 

The varying evidence highlights the need for a personalized approach – one that includes patients – to pain management for routine gynecological procedures.

“Usually patients are pretty good predictors,” said Lisa Bayer, MD, MPH, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. “They can anticipate what different things are going to feel like based on previous experiences.”
 

Making patients part of the discussion

Clinicians should have open discussions with patients about their past experiences and current anxieties about a gynecologic procedure, according to Dr. Bayer.

“Part of it is just creating a really safe environment of trust as a medical provider,” she said. 

A study published in 2016 of more than 800 patients undergoing oocyte retrieval, which has clear protocols for pain management, found that previous negative gynecologic experiences were significantly correlated to greater amounts of pain reported during the procedure. 

If pain isn’t properly managed, patients may avoid care in the future, putting them at risk for unplanned pregnancies, skipped cancer screenings, and complications from undiagnosed conditions and infections, Dr. Bayer added. Clinician offices will not always have access to all pain management options, so making referrals to another physician who has access to the appropriate technique may be the best thing for the patient, Dr. Bayer said. 


 

Downplaying the experience

Informing a patient that she will feel only a little discomfort during a procedure – when a clinician doesn’t know how exactly the patient will react – can also result in distrust. 

When a clinician says, “ ’It’s only going to be a little cramp, it’s only going to be a little pinch,’ we know extreme pain is a possibility, we’ve seen it,” Dr. Fenton said. “But if we choose to disregard that [possibility], it feels invalidating for patients.”

Failing to fully explain the possible pain scale can also directly interfere with the procedure at hand. 

“My first concern is if they aren’t anticipating the amount of pain they are going to experience, they may move; For biopsies and IUD insertions, we need them to be still,” Dr. Wasson said. “If they are unable to tolerate the procedure, we’ve put them through pain and not been able to accomplish the primary goal.”

Managing both pain and what patients can expect is even more crucial for adolescent and teenage patients who are often having their first gynecologic experience. 

“We’re framing what these experiences look like,” Dr. Fenton said. “That means there are opportunities for creating a space that builds trust and security for the patients moving forward.”
 

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

Mental health conditions are the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in Illinois (40%) and across the United States (21%).^1,2There is increasing recognition in primary care that major depressive disorder (MDD) often co-occurs with other mental health conditions. Funding bodies, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality³ and the Health Resources and Service Administration,⁴ have spotlights on improving screening and access to care for depression and substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the needs of individuals with multiple mental health conditions still often go unrecognized and unaddressed in perinatal health settings.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that all adults be screened for depression, alcohol use, and drug use, and will be recommending screening for anxiety.^5,6 The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends screening for perinatal mental health conditions including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, acute postpartum psychosis, and suicidality; however, despite these recommendations, screening and treatment for comorbid mental health disorders during pregnancy and the postpartum is not standard practice.⁷

Addressing perinatal mental health is critical because untreated mental health conditions during the perinatal period can cause long-term adverse psychiatric and medical outcomes for the birthing person, the baby, and the family.⁸ This commentary highlights the importance of recognizing and screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, improving referral rates for mental health treatment, and raising awareness of the importance of addressing rural perinatal mental health.
 

Perinatal mental health comorbidities

Major depressive disorder is the most common mental health condition during the perinatal period⁹ and is often comorbid.^10-12 In “Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities,” Craemer et al.¹³ reported that nearly half of the perinatal patients who screened positive for MDD also screened positive for at least one other mental health condition, among them general anxiety disorder (GAD), SUD, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidality.

Many (9%) of the perinatal patients with MDD had a severe comorbidity profile characterized by four diagnoses – MDD, GAD, SUD, and PTSD. In routine medical care these comorbidities often go undetected even though the risk to mothers and babies increases with more severe mental health symptoms.⁸

The high frequency of perinatal mental health comorbidities Craemer et al.¹³ found demonstrates a compelling need for comorbid mental health screening during the perinatal period, particularly for low-income Black, Hispanic, and rural birthing persons. Positive screens for perinatal mental health disorders may reflect the onset of these disorders in pregnancy or the postpartum, or preexisting disorders that have gone undetected or untreated before pregnancy.

For many patients, the perinatal period is the first time they are screened for any mental health disorder; typically, they are screened solely for depression. Screening alone can have a positive impact on perinatal mental health. In fact, the USPSTF found that programs to screen perinatal patients, with or without treatment-related support, resulted in a 2%-9% absolute reduction in depression prevalence.¹⁴ However, screening for MDD is too infrequent for many reasons, including the logistics of integrating screening into the clinic workflow and limited provider availability, time, and training in mental health.

We recommend screening perinatal patients for mental health comorbidities. This recommendation may seem impractical given the lack of screening tools for comorbid mental health conditions; however, the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health (CAT-MH), the validated tool^15-17 used in this study, is an ideal option. CAT-MH is uniquely capable of screening for MDD, GAD, PTSD, SUD, and suicidality in one platform and is routinely used in diverse settings including the Veterans Administration,¹⁸ foster care,¹⁹ and universities.²⁰ The main limitation of this more comprehensive screening is that it takes about 10 minutes per patient. However, CAT-MH is self-administered and can be done in the waiting room or on a mobile device prior to a clinic visit.

CAT-MH can also be easily integrated into clinical workflow when added to the Electronic Medical Record²¹, and is a more comprehensive tool than existing perinatal depression tools such as the Perinatal Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Edinburgh Perinatal Depression Scale (EPDS).²² Another limitation is cost – currently $5.00 per assessment – however, this is less than routine blood work.²³ If CAT-MH is not an option, we recommend a stepped approach of screening for GAD when perinatal patients screen positive for MDD, as this is the most common comorbidity profile. The GAD-7 is a free and widely available tool.²⁴

Barriers to care

In Craemer et al,¹³ nearly two-thirds (64.9%) of perinatal patients with a positive screen did not receive a referral to follow-up care or a medication prescription. These low referral rates may reflect a variety of widely recognized barriers to care, including lack of referral options, provider and/or patient reluctance to pursue referrals, barriers to insurance coverage, or inadequate behavioral health infrastructure to ensure referral and diagnostic follow-up.

Further, rural residing perinatal patients are an underserved population that need more resources and screening. Despite an on-site behavioral specialist at the rural clinic, Craemer et al¹³ found a stark disparity in referral rates: referrals to treatment for a positive diagnosis was over two times less at the rural clinic (23.9%), compared with the urban clinics (51.6%). The most common treatment offered at the rural clinic was a prescription for medication (17.4%), while referral to follow-up care was the most common at the urban clinics (35.5%). Rural areas not only have a shortage of health care providers, but community members seeking mental health care often encounter greater stigma, compared with urban residents.^25,26

These data highlight an unmet need for referrals to treatment for patients in rural communities, particularly in Illinois where the pregnancy-related mortality ratio attributable to mental health conditions is three times greater in rural areas, compared with those residing in urban Cook County (Chicago).² Increasing access and availability to mental health treatment and prevention resources in Illinois, especially in rural areas, is an opportunity to prevent pregnancy-related mortality attributable to mental health conditions.

Overall, there is a critical need for screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, increased attention to low rates of referral to mental health treatment, and investing in rural perinatal mental health. Addressing perinatal mental health disorders is key to decreasing the burden of maternal mortality, particularly in Illinois.

Ms. Craemer and Ms. Sayah are senior research specialists at the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Duffecy is a professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Geller is a professor of obstetrics & gynecology and director of the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Maki is a professor of psychiatry, psychology, and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

References

1. Trost S et al. Pregnancy-related deaths: Data from maternal mortality review committees in 36 states, 2017-2019. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2022.

2. Illinois Department of Public Health. Illinois maternal morbidity and mortality report 2016-2017. 2021.

3. AHRQ. Funding opportunities to address opioid and other substance use disorders. Updated 2023.

4. HRSA. Screening and treatment for maternal mental health and substance use disorders.

5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Recommendations for primary care practice. Accessed May 26, 2023.

6. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Draft recommendation statement: Anxiety in adults: Screening. 2022.

7. ACOG. Screening and diagnosis of mental health conditions during pregnancy and postpartum. Clinical Practice Guideline. Number 4. 2023 June.

8. Meltzer-Brody S and Stuebe A. The long-term psychiatric and medical prognosis of perinatal mental illness. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.08.009.

9. Van Niel MS and Payne JL. Perinatal depression: A review. Cleve Clin J Med. 2020 May. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.19054.

10. Wisner KL et al. Onset timing, thoughts of self-harm, and diagnoses in postpartum women with screen-positive depression findings. 2013 May. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.87.

11. Falah-Hassani K et al. The prevalence of antenatal and postnatal co-morbid anxiety and depression: A meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2017 Sep. doi: 10.1017/S0033291717000617.

12. Pentecost R et al. Scoping review of the associations between perinatal substance use and perinatal depression and anxiety. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jogn.2021.02.008.

13. Craemer KA et al. Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2023 Jul-Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2023.05.007.

14. O’Connor E et al. Primary care screening for and treatment of depression in pregnant and postpartum women: Evidence report and systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016 Jan 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.18948.

15. Kozhimannil KB et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in postpartum depression care among low-income women. Psychiatr Serv. 2011 Jun. doi: 10.1176/ps.62.6.pss6206_0619.

16. Wenzel ES et al. Depression and anxiety symptoms across pregnancy and the postpartum in low-income Black and Latina women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2021 Dec. doi: 10.1007/s00737-021-01139-y.

17. Gibbons RD et al. Development of a computerized adaptive substance use disorder scale for screening and measurement: The CAT‐SUD. Addiction. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1111/add.14938.

18. Brenner LA et al. Validation of a computerized adaptive test suicide scale (CAT-SS) among united states military veterans. PloS One. 2022 Jan 21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261920.

19. The Center for State Child Welfare Data. Using technology to diagnose and report on behavioral health challenges facing foster youth. 2018.

20. Kim JJ et al. The experience of depression, anxiety, and mania among perinatal women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2016 Oct. doi: 10.1007/s00737-016-0632-6.

21. Tepper MC et al. Toward population health: Using a learning behavioral health system and measurement-based care to improve access, care, outcomes, and disparities. Community Ment Health J. 2022 Nov. doi: 10.1007/s10597-022-00957-3.

22. Wenzel E et al. Using computerised adaptive tests to screen for perinatal depression in underserved women of colour. Evid Based Ment Health. 2022 Feb. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2021-300262.

23. Sanger-Katz M. They want it to be secret: How a common blood test can cost $11 or almost $1,000. New York Times. 2019 Apr 19.

24. Spitzer RL et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.

25. Mollard E et al. An integrative review of postpartum depression in rural US communities. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2016 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2015.12.003.

26. Anglim AJ and Radke SM. Rural maternal health care outcomes, drivers, and patient perspectives. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Dec 1. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000753.

Mental health conditions are the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in Illinois (40%) and across the United States (21%).^1,2There is increasing recognition in primary care that major depressive disorder (MDD) often co-occurs with other mental health conditions. Funding bodies, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality³ and the Health Resources and Service Administration,⁴ have spotlights on improving screening and access to care for depression and substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the needs of individuals with multiple mental health conditions still often go unrecognized and unaddressed in perinatal health settings.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that all adults be screened for depression, alcohol use, and drug use, and will be recommending screening for anxiety.^5,6 The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends screening for perinatal mental health conditions including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, acute postpartum psychosis, and suicidality; however, despite these recommendations, screening and treatment for comorbid mental health disorders during pregnancy and the postpartum is not standard practice.⁷

Addressing perinatal mental health is critical because untreated mental health conditions during the perinatal period can cause long-term adverse psychiatric and medical outcomes for the birthing person, the baby, and the family.⁸ This commentary highlights the importance of recognizing and screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, improving referral rates for mental health treatment, and raising awareness of the importance of addressing rural perinatal mental health.
 

Perinatal mental health comorbidities

Major depressive disorder is the most common mental health condition during the perinatal period⁹ and is often comorbid.^10-12 In “Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities,” Craemer et al.¹³ reported that nearly half of the perinatal patients who screened positive for MDD also screened positive for at least one other mental health condition, among them general anxiety disorder (GAD), SUD, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidality.

Many (9%) of the perinatal patients with MDD had a severe comorbidity profile characterized by four diagnoses – MDD, GAD, SUD, and PTSD. In routine medical care these comorbidities often go undetected even though the risk to mothers and babies increases with more severe mental health symptoms.⁸

The high frequency of perinatal mental health comorbidities Craemer et al.¹³ found demonstrates a compelling need for comorbid mental health screening during the perinatal period, particularly for low-income Black, Hispanic, and rural birthing persons. Positive screens for perinatal mental health disorders may reflect the onset of these disorders in pregnancy or the postpartum, or preexisting disorders that have gone undetected or untreated before pregnancy.

For many patients, the perinatal period is the first time they are screened for any mental health disorder; typically, they are screened solely for depression. Screening alone can have a positive impact on perinatal mental health. In fact, the USPSTF found that programs to screen perinatal patients, with or without treatment-related support, resulted in a 2%-9% absolute reduction in depression prevalence.¹⁴ However, screening for MDD is too infrequent for many reasons, including the logistics of integrating screening into the clinic workflow and limited provider availability, time, and training in mental health.

We recommend screening perinatal patients for mental health comorbidities. This recommendation may seem impractical given the lack of screening tools for comorbid mental health conditions; however, the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health (CAT-MH), the validated tool^15-17 used in this study, is an ideal option. CAT-MH is uniquely capable of screening for MDD, GAD, PTSD, SUD, and suicidality in one platform and is routinely used in diverse settings including the Veterans Administration,¹⁸ foster care,¹⁹ and universities.²⁰ The main limitation of this more comprehensive screening is that it takes about 10 minutes per patient. However, CAT-MH is self-administered and can be done in the waiting room or on a mobile device prior to a clinic visit.

CAT-MH can also be easily integrated into clinical workflow when added to the Electronic Medical Record²¹, and is a more comprehensive tool than existing perinatal depression tools such as the Perinatal Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Edinburgh Perinatal Depression Scale (EPDS).²² Another limitation is cost – currently $5.00 per assessment – however, this is less than routine blood work.²³ If CAT-MH is not an option, we recommend a stepped approach of screening for GAD when perinatal patients screen positive for MDD, as this is the most common comorbidity profile. The GAD-7 is a free and widely available tool.²⁴

Barriers to care

In Craemer et al,¹³ nearly two-thirds (64.9%) of perinatal patients with a positive screen did not receive a referral to follow-up care or a medication prescription. These low referral rates may reflect a variety of widely recognized barriers to care, including lack of referral options, provider and/or patient reluctance to pursue referrals, barriers to insurance coverage, or inadequate behavioral health infrastructure to ensure referral and diagnostic follow-up.

Further, rural residing perinatal patients are an underserved population that need more resources and screening. Despite an on-site behavioral specialist at the rural clinic, Craemer et al¹³ found a stark disparity in referral rates: referrals to treatment for a positive diagnosis was over two times less at the rural clinic (23.9%), compared with the urban clinics (51.6%). The most common treatment offered at the rural clinic was a prescription for medication (17.4%), while referral to follow-up care was the most common at the urban clinics (35.5%). Rural areas not only have a shortage of health care providers, but community members seeking mental health care often encounter greater stigma, compared with urban residents.^25,26

These data highlight an unmet need for referrals to treatment for patients in rural communities, particularly in Illinois where the pregnancy-related mortality ratio attributable to mental health conditions is three times greater in rural areas, compared with those residing in urban Cook County (Chicago).² Increasing access and availability to mental health treatment and prevention resources in Illinois, especially in rural areas, is an opportunity to prevent pregnancy-related mortality attributable to mental health conditions.

Overall, there is a critical need for screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, increased attention to low rates of referral to mental health treatment, and investing in rural perinatal mental health. Addressing perinatal mental health disorders is key to decreasing the burden of maternal mortality, particularly in Illinois.

Ms. Craemer and Ms. Sayah are senior research specialists at the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Duffecy is a professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Geller is a professor of obstetrics & gynecology and director of the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Maki is a professor of psychiatry, psychology, and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

References

1. Trost S et al. Pregnancy-related deaths: Data from maternal mortality review committees in 36 states, 2017-2019. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2022.

2. Illinois Department of Public Health. Illinois maternal morbidity and mortality report 2016-2017. 2021.

3. AHRQ. Funding opportunities to address opioid and other substance use disorders. Updated 2023.

4. HRSA. Screening and treatment for maternal mental health and substance use disorders.

5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Recommendations for primary care practice. Accessed May 26, 2023.

6. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Draft recommendation statement: Anxiety in adults: Screening. 2022.

7. ACOG. Screening and diagnosis of mental health conditions during pregnancy and postpartum. Clinical Practice Guideline. Number 4. 2023 June.

8. Meltzer-Brody S and Stuebe A. The long-term psychiatric and medical prognosis of perinatal mental illness. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.08.009.

9. Van Niel MS and Payne JL. Perinatal depression: A review. Cleve Clin J Med. 2020 May. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.19054.

10. Wisner KL et al. Onset timing, thoughts of self-harm, and diagnoses in postpartum women with screen-positive depression findings. 2013 May. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.87.

11. Falah-Hassani K et al. The prevalence of antenatal and postnatal co-morbid anxiety and depression: A meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2017 Sep. doi: 10.1017/S0033291717000617.

12. Pentecost R et al. Scoping review of the associations between perinatal substance use and perinatal depression and anxiety. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jogn.2021.02.008.

13. Craemer KA et al. Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2023 Jul-Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2023.05.007.

14. O’Connor E et al. Primary care screening for and treatment of depression in pregnant and postpartum women: Evidence report and systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016 Jan 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.18948.

15. Kozhimannil KB et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in postpartum depression care among low-income women. Psychiatr Serv. 2011 Jun. doi: 10.1176/ps.62.6.pss6206_0619.

16. Wenzel ES et al. Depression and anxiety symptoms across pregnancy and the postpartum in low-income Black and Latina women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2021 Dec. doi: 10.1007/s00737-021-01139-y.

17. Gibbons RD et al. Development of a computerized adaptive substance use disorder scale for screening and measurement: The CAT‐SUD. Addiction. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1111/add.14938.

18. Brenner LA et al. Validation of a computerized adaptive test suicide scale (CAT-SS) among united states military veterans. PloS One. 2022 Jan 21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261920.

19. The Center for State Child Welfare Data. Using technology to diagnose and report on behavioral health challenges facing foster youth. 2018.

20. Kim JJ et al. The experience of depression, anxiety, and mania among perinatal women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2016 Oct. doi: 10.1007/s00737-016-0632-6.

21. Tepper MC et al. Toward population health: Using a learning behavioral health system and measurement-based care to improve access, care, outcomes, and disparities. Community Ment Health J. 2022 Nov. doi: 10.1007/s10597-022-00957-3.

22. Wenzel E et al. Using computerised adaptive tests to screen for perinatal depression in underserved women of colour. Evid Based Ment Health. 2022 Feb. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2021-300262.

23. Sanger-Katz M. They want it to be secret: How a common blood test can cost $11 or almost $1,000. New York Times. 2019 Apr 19.

24. Spitzer RL et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.

25. Mollard E et al. An integrative review of postpartum depression in rural US communities. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2016 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2015.12.003.

26. Anglim AJ and Radke SM. Rural maternal health care outcomes, drivers, and patient perspectives. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Dec 1. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000753.

Mental health conditions are the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in Illinois (40%) and across the United States (21%).^1,2There is increasing recognition in primary care that major depressive disorder (MDD) often co-occurs with other mental health conditions. Funding bodies, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality³ and the Health Resources and Service Administration,⁴ have spotlights on improving screening and access to care for depression and substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the needs of individuals with multiple mental health conditions still often go unrecognized and unaddressed in perinatal health settings.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that all adults be screened for depression, alcohol use, and drug use, and will be recommending screening for anxiety.^5,6 The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends screening for perinatal mental health conditions including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, acute postpartum psychosis, and suicidality; however, despite these recommendations, screening and treatment for comorbid mental health disorders during pregnancy and the postpartum is not standard practice.⁷

Addressing perinatal mental health is critical because untreated mental health conditions during the perinatal period can cause long-term adverse psychiatric and medical outcomes for the birthing person, the baby, and the family.⁸ This commentary highlights the importance of recognizing and screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, improving referral rates for mental health treatment, and raising awareness of the importance of addressing rural perinatal mental health.
 

Perinatal mental health comorbidities

Major depressive disorder is the most common mental health condition during the perinatal period⁹ and is often comorbid.^10-12 In “Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities,” Craemer et al.¹³ reported that nearly half of the perinatal patients who screened positive for MDD also screened positive for at least one other mental health condition, among them general anxiety disorder (GAD), SUD, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidality.

Many (9%) of the perinatal patients with MDD had a severe comorbidity profile characterized by four diagnoses – MDD, GAD, SUD, and PTSD. In routine medical care these comorbidities often go undetected even though the risk to mothers and babies increases with more severe mental health symptoms.⁸

The high frequency of perinatal mental health comorbidities Craemer et al.¹³ found demonstrates a compelling need for comorbid mental health screening during the perinatal period, particularly for low-income Black, Hispanic, and rural birthing persons. Positive screens for perinatal mental health disorders may reflect the onset of these disorders in pregnancy or the postpartum, or preexisting disorders that have gone undetected or untreated before pregnancy.

For many patients, the perinatal period is the first time they are screened for any mental health disorder; typically, they are screened solely for depression. Screening alone can have a positive impact on perinatal mental health. In fact, the USPSTF found that programs to screen perinatal patients, with or without treatment-related support, resulted in a 2%-9% absolute reduction in depression prevalence.¹⁴ However, screening for MDD is too infrequent for many reasons, including the logistics of integrating screening into the clinic workflow and limited provider availability, time, and training in mental health.

We recommend screening perinatal patients for mental health comorbidities. This recommendation may seem impractical given the lack of screening tools for comorbid mental health conditions; however, the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health (CAT-MH), the validated tool^15-17 used in this study, is an ideal option. CAT-MH is uniquely capable of screening for MDD, GAD, PTSD, SUD, and suicidality in one platform and is routinely used in diverse settings including the Veterans Administration,¹⁸ foster care,¹⁹ and universities.²⁰ The main limitation of this more comprehensive screening is that it takes about 10 minutes per patient. However, CAT-MH is self-administered and can be done in the waiting room or on a mobile device prior to a clinic visit.

CAT-MH can also be easily integrated into clinical workflow when added to the Electronic Medical Record²¹, and is a more comprehensive tool than existing perinatal depression tools such as the Perinatal Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Edinburgh Perinatal Depression Scale (EPDS).²² Another limitation is cost – currently $5.00 per assessment – however, this is less than routine blood work.²³ If CAT-MH is not an option, we recommend a stepped approach of screening for GAD when perinatal patients screen positive for MDD, as this is the most common comorbidity profile. The GAD-7 is a free and widely available tool.²⁴

Barriers to care

In Craemer et al,¹³ nearly two-thirds (64.9%) of perinatal patients with a positive screen did not receive a referral to follow-up care or a medication prescription. These low referral rates may reflect a variety of widely recognized barriers to care, including lack of referral options, provider and/or patient reluctance to pursue referrals, barriers to insurance coverage, or inadequate behavioral health infrastructure to ensure referral and diagnostic follow-up.

Further, rural residing perinatal patients are an underserved population that need more resources and screening. Despite an on-site behavioral specialist at the rural clinic, Craemer et al¹³ found a stark disparity in referral rates: referrals to treatment for a positive diagnosis was over two times less at the rural clinic (23.9%), compared with the urban clinics (51.6%). The most common treatment offered at the rural clinic was a prescription for medication (17.4%), while referral to follow-up care was the most common at the urban clinics (35.5%). Rural areas not only have a shortage of health care providers, but community members seeking mental health care often encounter greater stigma, compared with urban residents.^25,26

These data highlight an unmet need for referrals to treatment for patients in rural communities, particularly in Illinois where the pregnancy-related mortality ratio attributable to mental health conditions is three times greater in rural areas, compared with those residing in urban Cook County (Chicago).² Increasing access and availability to mental health treatment and prevention resources in Illinois, especially in rural areas, is an opportunity to prevent pregnancy-related mortality attributable to mental health conditions.

Overall, there is a critical need for screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, increased attention to low rates of referral to mental health treatment, and investing in rural perinatal mental health. Addressing perinatal mental health disorders is key to decreasing the burden of maternal mortality, particularly in Illinois.

Ms. Craemer and Ms. Sayah are senior research specialists at the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Duffecy is a professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Geller is a professor of obstetrics & gynecology and director of the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Maki is a professor of psychiatry, psychology, and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

References

1. Trost S et al. Pregnancy-related deaths: Data from maternal mortality review committees in 36 states, 2017-2019. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2022.

2. Illinois Department of Public Health. Illinois maternal morbidity and mortality report 2016-2017. 2021.

3. AHRQ. Funding opportunities to address opioid and other substance use disorders. Updated 2023.

4. HRSA. Screening and treatment for maternal mental health and substance use disorders.

5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Recommendations for primary care practice. Accessed May 26, 2023.

6. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Draft recommendation statement: Anxiety in adults: Screening. 2022.

7. ACOG. Screening and diagnosis of mental health conditions during pregnancy and postpartum. Clinical Practice Guideline. Number 4. 2023 June.

8. Meltzer-Brody S and Stuebe A. The long-term psychiatric and medical prognosis of perinatal mental illness. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.08.009.

9. Van Niel MS and Payne JL. Perinatal depression: A review. Cleve Clin J Med. 2020 May. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.19054.

10. Wisner KL et al. Onset timing, thoughts of self-harm, and diagnoses in postpartum women with screen-positive depression findings. 2013 May. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.87.

11. Falah-Hassani K et al. The prevalence of antenatal and postnatal co-morbid anxiety and depression: A meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2017 Sep. doi: 10.1017/S0033291717000617.

12. Pentecost R et al. Scoping review of the associations between perinatal substance use and perinatal depression and anxiety. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jogn.2021.02.008.

13. Craemer KA et al. Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2023 Jul-Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2023.05.007.

14. O’Connor E et al. Primary care screening for and treatment of depression in pregnant and postpartum women: Evidence report and systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016 Jan 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.18948.

15. Kozhimannil KB et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in postpartum depression care among low-income women. Psychiatr Serv. 2011 Jun. doi: 10.1176/ps.62.6.pss6206_0619.

16. Wenzel ES et al. Depression and anxiety symptoms across pregnancy and the postpartum in low-income Black and Latina women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2021 Dec. doi: 10.1007/s00737-021-01139-y.

17. Gibbons RD et al. Development of a computerized adaptive substance use disorder scale for screening and measurement: The CAT‐SUD. Addiction. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1111/add.14938.

18. Brenner LA et al. Validation of a computerized adaptive test suicide scale (CAT-SS) among united states military veterans. PloS One. 2022 Jan 21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261920.

19. The Center for State Child Welfare Data. Using technology to diagnose and report on behavioral health challenges facing foster youth. 2018.

20. Kim JJ et al. The experience of depression, anxiety, and mania among perinatal women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2016 Oct. doi: 10.1007/s00737-016-0632-6.

21. Tepper MC et al. Toward population health: Using a learning behavioral health system and measurement-based care to improve access, care, outcomes, and disparities. Community Ment Health J. 2022 Nov. doi: 10.1007/s10597-022-00957-3.

22. Wenzel E et al. Using computerised adaptive tests to screen for perinatal depression in underserved women of colour. Evid Based Ment Health. 2022 Feb. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2021-300262.

23. Sanger-Katz M. They want it to be secret: How a common blood test can cost $11 or almost $1,000. New York Times. 2019 Apr 19.

24. Spitzer RL et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.

25. Mollard E et al. An integrative review of postpartum depression in rural US communities. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2016 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2015.12.003.

26. Anglim AJ and Radke SM. Rural maternal health care outcomes, drivers, and patient perspectives. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Dec 1. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000753.