TBD Meeting (2840-22)

Group prenatal care did not reduce preterm birth among low-income patients compared to patients receiving individual prenatal care, but the different care models did shrink racial disparities in low-birth-weight and preterm births, according to a study presented Feb. 3 at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Patients who attended more group prenatal care visits also had better outcomes, reported Amy Crockett, MD, professor of ob.gyn. and director of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellowship Program at the University of South Carolina in Greenville.

Though the results did not show group prenatal care to be the “silver bullet” they might have hoped for in reducing preterm birth and low birth weight among Black women, the study did show group prenatal care to have some clinical effect, Dr. Crockett suggested.

Ilina Pluym, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, said that preterm birth and low birth weight are complex problems that cannot be solved by a single fix.

“In terms of the racial disparities, it is difficult to prove that 9 months of good access to prenatal care will undo the years of limited health care and life stressors that, as a whole, possibly contribute more to the overall risk profile of the patient,” Dr. Pluym said. “But as providers, we want to intervene and help in the portion that we can, and optimizing prenatal care is one tangible thing we can try.”

The racial disparities that exist in preterm birth, low birth weight, and infant and maternal mortality are not caused by biologic or genetic factors, Dr. Crockett told attendees.

”Rather, they are the result of long-standing systemic racism and discrimination deeply embedded in the culture of the United States,” she said. “To achieve racial equity, we need reform at the societal level.” But she noted that it might be possible for individual practices to play a role as well, which led her to design a study comparing outcomes from group versus individual prenatal care.

The group care model used for the study is called Centering Pregnancy, in which 8-10 pregnant patients who are due in the same month attend 10 two-hour prenatal care sessions together. Dr. Crockett noted that other research has identified potential reductions in preterm birth with group care models, but some are underpowered while others are observational and limited by confounding, selection bias, or small sample sizes.

The researchers aimed to recruit 3,160 patients to ensure an adequately powered study after estimated losses to follow-up, but they were able to recruit only 2,350 patients, resulting in potentially underpowered results. All the patients were receiving care at a single obstetric practice for a medically low-risk singleton pregnancy of 20 or fewer weeks gestation. A total of 1,176 patients were randomly assigned to attend group prenatal care appointments, and 1,174 patients were assigned to individual prenatal care.

The patients in both groups were an average age of 25 with a prepregnancy body mass index of 29. A similar proportion in both the group and individual care were married (24%) patients and had a government payer (96%-97%). Approximately 41%were Black patients, 37% were White patients, and 21% were Hispanic patients in both groups. Rates of chronic hypertension, smoking, vaginal infection in pregnancy, parity, cervix length, and use of cerclage were similar in both groups.

Gestational age outcomes were available for 1,099 group care patients (94%) and 1,120 individual care patients (95%), and birth weight outcomes were available for 1,028 group care patients (87%) and 1,044 individual care patients (89%).

In the individual care group, 8.7% of the patients had a preterm birth, compared to 10.4% who attended group prenatal care, but the findings did not reach significance (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.63). The difference between the 9.6% of group care patients and 8.9% of individual care patients who had babies with low birth weights were not significantly different.

While no significant difference in preterm birth occurred between the groups, the secondary outcome looking at racial disparities yielded one statistically significant result. Black women receiving individual prenatal care were twice as likely as were White women to have an infant with a low birth weight (OR, 2.1; 95% CI: 1.29-3.5). Among those receiving group care, however, the 12.5% of Black women and 8.9% of White women whose infants had a low birth weight were not significantly different.

There was a trend toward narrower disparities in preterm birth in the group versus individual care groups. Among those receiving group care, 11.4% of Black women and 10.8% of White women had a preterm birth, compared to 10.2% of Black women and 7.7% of White women in the individual care group.

Then the researchers compared the groups with regard to compliance while adjusting for baseline differences. “We saw decreasing rates of preterm birth for Black patients relative to White patients, particularly after attending five or more sessions in the group care arm with the rates of preterm birth narrowing and the disparity becoming nonsignificant with more exposure to group care,” Dr. Crockett said. “In individual care, the rate of preterm birth remained the highest for Black women regardless of the number of visits attended.”

The idea of trying group prenatal care is appealing, Dr. Pluym said in an interview, though both models have their advantages.

”The strength of individual care is the focus on the patient exam and individual patient questions,” Dr. Pluym said. “The strengths of group prenatal care are the consolidation of the patient education aspect of prenatal care that is uniform for all patients, the sense of community patients feel, and the opportunity to hear other patients questions that you may not have thought of. It sounds like, anecdotally, patients and providers really found the group sessions valuable and they helped dampen implicit bias and build relationships.”

One potential limitation of this randomized controlled trial is that the providers were the same for both group and individual care, potentially causing some confounding, Dr. Pluym noted. But the study does have one clear clinical message, she said.

“My take away is more prenatal care is better – individual or group,” Dr. Pluym said. “Every clinic should evaluate their own structure and see if group care would be feasible for their patient population. There may be a benefit globally, but is it is not the ‘silver bullet,’ as they said, for lowering preterm birth or growth restriction.”

The research was funded by the Institute of Child Health and Development. The study researchers and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

Group prenatal care did not reduce preterm birth among low-income patients compared to patients receiving individual prenatal care, but the different care models did shrink racial disparities in low-birth-weight and preterm births, according to a study presented Feb. 3 at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Patients who attended more group prenatal care visits also had better outcomes, reported Amy Crockett, MD, professor of ob.gyn. and director of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellowship Program at the University of South Carolina in Greenville.

Though the results did not show group prenatal care to be the “silver bullet” they might have hoped for in reducing preterm birth and low birth weight among Black women, the study did show group prenatal care to have some clinical effect, Dr. Crockett suggested.

Ilina Pluym, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, said that preterm birth and low birth weight are complex problems that cannot be solved by a single fix.

“In terms of the racial disparities, it is difficult to prove that 9 months of good access to prenatal care will undo the years of limited health care and life stressors that, as a whole, possibly contribute more to the overall risk profile of the patient,” Dr. Pluym said. “But as providers, we want to intervene and help in the portion that we can, and optimizing prenatal care is one tangible thing we can try.”

The racial disparities that exist in preterm birth, low birth weight, and infant and maternal mortality are not caused by biologic or genetic factors, Dr. Crockett told attendees.

”Rather, they are the result of long-standing systemic racism and discrimination deeply embedded in the culture of the United States,” she said. “To achieve racial equity, we need reform at the societal level.” But she noted that it might be possible for individual practices to play a role as well, which led her to design a study comparing outcomes from group versus individual prenatal care.

The group care model used for the study is called Centering Pregnancy, in which 8-10 pregnant patients who are due in the same month attend 10 two-hour prenatal care sessions together. Dr. Crockett noted that other research has identified potential reductions in preterm birth with group care models, but some are underpowered while others are observational and limited by confounding, selection bias, or small sample sizes.

The researchers aimed to recruit 3,160 patients to ensure an adequately powered study after estimated losses to follow-up, but they were able to recruit only 2,350 patients, resulting in potentially underpowered results. All the patients were receiving care at a single obstetric practice for a medically low-risk singleton pregnancy of 20 or fewer weeks gestation. A total of 1,176 patients were randomly assigned to attend group prenatal care appointments, and 1,174 patients were assigned to individual prenatal care.

The patients in both groups were an average age of 25 with a prepregnancy body mass index of 29. A similar proportion in both the group and individual care were married (24%) patients and had a government payer (96%-97%). Approximately 41%were Black patients, 37% were White patients, and 21% were Hispanic patients in both groups. Rates of chronic hypertension, smoking, vaginal infection in pregnancy, parity, cervix length, and use of cerclage were similar in both groups.

Gestational age outcomes were available for 1,099 group care patients (94%) and 1,120 individual care patients (95%), and birth weight outcomes were available for 1,028 group care patients (87%) and 1,044 individual care patients (89%).

In the individual care group, 8.7% of the patients had a preterm birth, compared to 10.4% who attended group prenatal care, but the findings did not reach significance (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.63). The difference between the 9.6% of group care patients and 8.9% of individual care patients who had babies with low birth weights were not significantly different.

While no significant difference in preterm birth occurred between the groups, the secondary outcome looking at racial disparities yielded one statistically significant result. Black women receiving individual prenatal care were twice as likely as were White women to have an infant with a low birth weight (OR, 2.1; 95% CI: 1.29-3.5). Among those receiving group care, however, the 12.5% of Black women and 8.9% of White women whose infants had a low birth weight were not significantly different.

There was a trend toward narrower disparities in preterm birth in the group versus individual care groups. Among those receiving group care, 11.4% of Black women and 10.8% of White women had a preterm birth, compared to 10.2% of Black women and 7.7% of White women in the individual care group.

Then the researchers compared the groups with regard to compliance while adjusting for baseline differences. “We saw decreasing rates of preterm birth for Black patients relative to White patients, particularly after attending five or more sessions in the group care arm with the rates of preterm birth narrowing and the disparity becoming nonsignificant with more exposure to group care,” Dr. Crockett said. “In individual care, the rate of preterm birth remained the highest for Black women regardless of the number of visits attended.”

The idea of trying group prenatal care is appealing, Dr. Pluym said in an interview, though both models have their advantages.

”The strength of individual care is the focus on the patient exam and individual patient questions,” Dr. Pluym said. “The strengths of group prenatal care are the consolidation of the patient education aspect of prenatal care that is uniform for all patients, the sense of community patients feel, and the opportunity to hear other patients questions that you may not have thought of. It sounds like, anecdotally, patients and providers really found the group sessions valuable and they helped dampen implicit bias and build relationships.”

One potential limitation of this randomized controlled trial is that the providers were the same for both group and individual care, potentially causing some confounding, Dr. Pluym noted. But the study does have one clear clinical message, she said.

“My take away is more prenatal care is better – individual or group,” Dr. Pluym said. “Every clinic should evaluate their own structure and see if group care would be feasible for their patient population. There may be a benefit globally, but is it is not the ‘silver bullet,’ as they said, for lowering preterm birth or growth restriction.”

The research was funded by the Institute of Child Health and Development. The study researchers and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

Group prenatal care did not reduce preterm birth among low-income patients compared to patients receiving individual prenatal care, but the different care models did shrink racial disparities in low-birth-weight and preterm births, according to a study presented Feb. 3 at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Patients who attended more group prenatal care visits also had better outcomes, reported Amy Crockett, MD, professor of ob.gyn. and director of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellowship Program at the University of South Carolina in Greenville.

Though the results did not show group prenatal care to be the “silver bullet” they might have hoped for in reducing preterm birth and low birth weight among Black women, the study did show group prenatal care to have some clinical effect, Dr. Crockett suggested.

Ilina Pluym, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, said that preterm birth and low birth weight are complex problems that cannot be solved by a single fix.

“In terms of the racial disparities, it is difficult to prove that 9 months of good access to prenatal care will undo the years of limited health care and life stressors that, as a whole, possibly contribute more to the overall risk profile of the patient,” Dr. Pluym said. “But as providers, we want to intervene and help in the portion that we can, and optimizing prenatal care is one tangible thing we can try.”

The racial disparities that exist in preterm birth, low birth weight, and infant and maternal mortality are not caused by biologic or genetic factors, Dr. Crockett told attendees.

”Rather, they are the result of long-standing systemic racism and discrimination deeply embedded in the culture of the United States,” she said. “To achieve racial equity, we need reform at the societal level.” But she noted that it might be possible for individual practices to play a role as well, which led her to design a study comparing outcomes from group versus individual prenatal care.

The group care model used for the study is called Centering Pregnancy, in which 8-10 pregnant patients who are due in the same month attend 10 two-hour prenatal care sessions together. Dr. Crockett noted that other research has identified potential reductions in preterm birth with group care models, but some are underpowered while others are observational and limited by confounding, selection bias, or small sample sizes.

The researchers aimed to recruit 3,160 patients to ensure an adequately powered study after estimated losses to follow-up, but they were able to recruit only 2,350 patients, resulting in potentially underpowered results. All the patients were receiving care at a single obstetric practice for a medically low-risk singleton pregnancy of 20 or fewer weeks gestation. A total of 1,176 patients were randomly assigned to attend group prenatal care appointments, and 1,174 patients were assigned to individual prenatal care.

The patients in both groups were an average age of 25 with a prepregnancy body mass index of 29. A similar proportion in both the group and individual care were married (24%) patients and had a government payer (96%-97%). Approximately 41%were Black patients, 37% were White patients, and 21% were Hispanic patients in both groups. Rates of chronic hypertension, smoking, vaginal infection in pregnancy, parity, cervix length, and use of cerclage were similar in both groups.

Gestational age outcomes were available for 1,099 group care patients (94%) and 1,120 individual care patients (95%), and birth weight outcomes were available for 1,028 group care patients (87%) and 1,044 individual care patients (89%).

In the individual care group, 8.7% of the patients had a preterm birth, compared to 10.4% who attended group prenatal care, but the findings did not reach significance (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.63). The difference between the 9.6% of group care patients and 8.9% of individual care patients who had babies with low birth weights were not significantly different.

While no significant difference in preterm birth occurred between the groups, the secondary outcome looking at racial disparities yielded one statistically significant result. Black women receiving individual prenatal care were twice as likely as were White women to have an infant with a low birth weight (OR, 2.1; 95% CI: 1.29-3.5). Among those receiving group care, however, the 12.5% of Black women and 8.9% of White women whose infants had a low birth weight were not significantly different.

There was a trend toward narrower disparities in preterm birth in the group versus individual care groups. Among those receiving group care, 11.4% of Black women and 10.8% of White women had a preterm birth, compared to 10.2% of Black women and 7.7% of White women in the individual care group.

Then the researchers compared the groups with regard to compliance while adjusting for baseline differences. “We saw decreasing rates of preterm birth for Black patients relative to White patients, particularly after attending five or more sessions in the group care arm with the rates of preterm birth narrowing and the disparity becoming nonsignificant with more exposure to group care,” Dr. Crockett said. “In individual care, the rate of preterm birth remained the highest for Black women regardless of the number of visits attended.”

The idea of trying group prenatal care is appealing, Dr. Pluym said in an interview, though both models have their advantages.

”The strength of individual care is the focus on the patient exam and individual patient questions,” Dr. Pluym said. “The strengths of group prenatal care are the consolidation of the patient education aspect of prenatal care that is uniform for all patients, the sense of community patients feel, and the opportunity to hear other patients questions that you may not have thought of. It sounds like, anecdotally, patients and providers really found the group sessions valuable and they helped dampen implicit bias and build relationships.”

One potential limitation of this randomized controlled trial is that the providers were the same for both group and individual care, potentially causing some confounding, Dr. Pluym noted. But the study does have one clear clinical message, she said.

“My take away is more prenatal care is better – individual or group,” Dr. Pluym said. “Every clinic should evaluate their own structure and see if group care would be feasible for their patient population. There may be a benefit globally, but is it is not the ‘silver bullet,’ as they said, for lowering preterm birth or growth restriction.”

The research was funded by the Institute of Child Health and Development. The study researchers and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

Screening pregnant women with obesity for gestational diabetes before 20 weeks of pregnancy did not lead to any improved maternal or neonatal outcomes compared with doing routine screening between 24 and 28 weeks, according to research presented Feb. 4 at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“There is increasing evidence that early screening does not reduce the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes,” Jennifer Thompson, MD, associate professor of ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “The increasing number of studies that have demonstrated no benefit in reducing adverse perinatal outcomes leads to consideration to revise recommendations for early screening.”

However, she did note that early screening may be helpful in identifying patients with undiagnosed preexisting diabetes.

Michael Richley, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said catching those previously undiagnosed cases is one of the goals of earlier screening with the expectation that earlier management will lead to better outcomes.

“If a patient then obtains the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, introducing nutritional counseling and possible medical management early can lead to better outcomes,” said Dr. Richley, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research. ”While catching undiagnosed type 2 diabetes is not common, it is becoming increasingly common lately.”

Obesity is a known risk factor for impaired glucose metabolism and for gestational diabetes, explained presenter Christopher A. Enakpene, MD, an ob.gyn. from Midland, Tex., who completed the study while completing his maternal-fetal medicine fellowship at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Dr. Enakpene reminded attendees that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) currently recommends early screening for gestational diabetes in patients with certain risk factors, including obesity, a history of first-degree relatives with diabetes, or a history of gestational diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, poor pregnancy outcomes, fetal demise, congenital abnormalities, or birth of an infant large for gestational age.

The researchers screened 7,126 patients for enrollment in the study from March 2017 through February 2019 and identified 600 who met the criteria: An adult with a singleton pregnancy and body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m². Patients were excluded if they had preexisting diabetes, elevated blood glucose or impaired glucose tolerance, a history of gestational diabetes, any chromosomal anomalies or abnormalities in the pregnancy, or were past 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The prospective randomized controlled trial was open label and included 296 patients who were randomly assigned to early screening with a 1-hour glucose challenge test (GCT) and hemoglobin A_1c before 20 weeks, followed by a 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test if the GCT result was between 140 and 200 mg/dL with an HbA_1c of less than 6.5%. The other 304 patients were screened with a 1-hour GCT between 24 and 28 weeks but also had an HbA_1c test before 20 weeks.

The primary outcome was macrosomia, defined as a birth weight at least 4,000 g, with various maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes. The only significant difference between the groups at baseline was a higher proportion of Hispanic participants in the early screening group (22.4%) compared to the routine screening group (13.7%).

The groups had no significant differences in birth weight or macrosomia, which occurred in 2.8% of the early screening group and 3.4% of the routine screening group (P = .7). There were no significant differences in gestational age at delivery, preeclampsia, polyhydramnios, shoulder dystocia, cesarean delivery, or NICU admission. However, the rate of gestational diabetes was significantly higher in the early screening group (22.5%) than in the routine screening group (15.7%; P < .05). In addition, more participants with gestational diabetes in the early screening group used insulin (34.4%) compared with those in the routine screening group (15.6%; P < .05).

Dr. Enakpene noted several reasons that the perinatal outcomes may have been similar between the groups, such as the increased rate of gestational diabetes requiring treatment in the early screening group or a higher proportion of participants using insulin in the early screening group.

“Hence, the similarity in adverse perinatal outcomes between the groups despite a higher proportion of gestational diabetes in the early group might be due to more utilization of insulin,” Dr. Enakpene said.

Dr. Richley was not surprised by the findings and hypothesized that the reason for not seeing a difference in outcomes might relate to using a 20-week cutoff for testing when type 2 diabetes would be evident at any stage of pregnancy.

“It would be interesting to have a study look at diabetes testing exclusively in the first trimester for high-risk patients that looks at neonatal outcomes and see if that would show a difference between the two groups,” Dr. Richley said.

Dr. Thompson was similarly interested in whether 20 weeks was an early enough time for early screening.

”I would also like to know the differences in management between the two groups and if the knowledge of early diagnosis impacted their management, such as timing of medication start, amount of medication required, and how that differed from the standard group,” Dr. Thompson said. ”Since patients with a hemoglobin A_1c > 6.5% or glucose tolerance test > 200 [mg/dL] were excluded, I’m interested in the number of patients that were excluded since they likely have undiagnosed preexisting diabetes, which are the patients that may benefit most from early screening.”

Dr. Richley pointed out that the potential clinical implications of the study are limited right now.

“While their secondary outcomes of neonatal hypoglycemia, method of delivery, and other common obstetrical measures were not different, we cannot draw conclusions from this as the study was not powered to evaluate these findings,” Dr. Richley said. “I do still see a role in early screening for patients with risk factors but favor doing so at the first prenatal visit, whenever that is, as opposed to as late as mid-second trimester, though this is often when a patient’s first interaction with a health care system will be within their pregnancy.”

Dr. Enakpene, Dr. Thompson, and Dr. Richley reported no disclosures. External funding for the study was not noted.

Screening pregnant women with obesity for gestational diabetes before 20 weeks of pregnancy did not lead to any improved maternal or neonatal outcomes compared with doing routine screening between 24 and 28 weeks, according to research presented Feb. 4 at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“There is increasing evidence that early screening does not reduce the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes,” Jennifer Thompson, MD, associate professor of ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “The increasing number of studies that have demonstrated no benefit in reducing adverse perinatal outcomes leads to consideration to revise recommendations for early screening.”

However, she did note that early screening may be helpful in identifying patients with undiagnosed preexisting diabetes.

Michael Richley, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said catching those previously undiagnosed cases is one of the goals of earlier screening with the expectation that earlier management will lead to better outcomes.

“If a patient then obtains the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, introducing nutritional counseling and possible medical management early can lead to better outcomes,” said Dr. Richley, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research. ”While catching undiagnosed type 2 diabetes is not common, it is becoming increasingly common lately.”

Obesity is a known risk factor for impaired glucose metabolism and for gestational diabetes, explained presenter Christopher A. Enakpene, MD, an ob.gyn. from Midland, Tex., who completed the study while completing his maternal-fetal medicine fellowship at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Dr. Enakpene reminded attendees that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) currently recommends early screening for gestational diabetes in patients with certain risk factors, including obesity, a history of first-degree relatives with diabetes, or a history of gestational diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, poor pregnancy outcomes, fetal demise, congenital abnormalities, or birth of an infant large for gestational age.

The researchers screened 7,126 patients for enrollment in the study from March 2017 through February 2019 and identified 600 who met the criteria: An adult with a singleton pregnancy and body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m². Patients were excluded if they had preexisting diabetes, elevated blood glucose or impaired glucose tolerance, a history of gestational diabetes, any chromosomal anomalies or abnormalities in the pregnancy, or were past 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The prospective randomized controlled trial was open label and included 296 patients who were randomly assigned to early screening with a 1-hour glucose challenge test (GCT) and hemoglobin A_1c before 20 weeks, followed by a 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test if the GCT result was between 140 and 200 mg/dL with an HbA_1c of less than 6.5%. The other 304 patients were screened with a 1-hour GCT between 24 and 28 weeks but also had an HbA_1c test before 20 weeks.

The primary outcome was macrosomia, defined as a birth weight at least 4,000 g, with various maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes. The only significant difference between the groups at baseline was a higher proportion of Hispanic participants in the early screening group (22.4%) compared to the routine screening group (13.7%).

The groups had no significant differences in birth weight or macrosomia, which occurred in 2.8% of the early screening group and 3.4% of the routine screening group (P = .7). There were no significant differences in gestational age at delivery, preeclampsia, polyhydramnios, shoulder dystocia, cesarean delivery, or NICU admission. However, the rate of gestational diabetes was significantly higher in the early screening group (22.5%) than in the routine screening group (15.7%; P < .05). In addition, more participants with gestational diabetes in the early screening group used insulin (34.4%) compared with those in the routine screening group (15.6%; P < .05).

Dr. Enakpene noted several reasons that the perinatal outcomes may have been similar between the groups, such as the increased rate of gestational diabetes requiring treatment in the early screening group or a higher proportion of participants using insulin in the early screening group.

“Hence, the similarity in adverse perinatal outcomes between the groups despite a higher proportion of gestational diabetes in the early group might be due to more utilization of insulin,” Dr. Enakpene said.

Dr. Richley was not surprised by the findings and hypothesized that the reason for not seeing a difference in outcomes might relate to using a 20-week cutoff for testing when type 2 diabetes would be evident at any stage of pregnancy.

“It would be interesting to have a study look at diabetes testing exclusively in the first trimester for high-risk patients that looks at neonatal outcomes and see if that would show a difference between the two groups,” Dr. Richley said.

Dr. Thompson was similarly interested in whether 20 weeks was an early enough time for early screening.

”I would also like to know the differences in management between the two groups and if the knowledge of early diagnosis impacted their management, such as timing of medication start, amount of medication required, and how that differed from the standard group,” Dr. Thompson said. ”Since patients with a hemoglobin A_1c > 6.5% or glucose tolerance test > 200 [mg/dL] were excluded, I’m interested in the number of patients that were excluded since they likely have undiagnosed preexisting diabetes, which are the patients that may benefit most from early screening.”

Dr. Richley pointed out that the potential clinical implications of the study are limited right now.

“While their secondary outcomes of neonatal hypoglycemia, method of delivery, and other common obstetrical measures were not different, we cannot draw conclusions from this as the study was not powered to evaluate these findings,” Dr. Richley said. “I do still see a role in early screening for patients with risk factors but favor doing so at the first prenatal visit, whenever that is, as opposed to as late as mid-second trimester, though this is often when a patient’s first interaction with a health care system will be within their pregnancy.”

Dr. Enakpene, Dr. Thompson, and Dr. Richley reported no disclosures. External funding for the study was not noted.

Screening pregnant women with obesity for gestational diabetes before 20 weeks of pregnancy did not lead to any improved maternal or neonatal outcomes compared with doing routine screening between 24 and 28 weeks, according to research presented Feb. 4 at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“There is increasing evidence that early screening does not reduce the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes,” Jennifer Thompson, MD, associate professor of ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “The increasing number of studies that have demonstrated no benefit in reducing adverse perinatal outcomes leads to consideration to revise recommendations for early screening.”

However, she did note that early screening may be helpful in identifying patients with undiagnosed preexisting diabetes.

Michael Richley, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said catching those previously undiagnosed cases is one of the goals of earlier screening with the expectation that earlier management will lead to better outcomes.

“If a patient then obtains the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, introducing nutritional counseling and possible medical management early can lead to better outcomes,” said Dr. Richley, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research. ”While catching undiagnosed type 2 diabetes is not common, it is becoming increasingly common lately.”

Obesity is a known risk factor for impaired glucose metabolism and for gestational diabetes, explained presenter Christopher A. Enakpene, MD, an ob.gyn. from Midland, Tex., who completed the study while completing his maternal-fetal medicine fellowship at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Dr. Enakpene reminded attendees that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) currently recommends early screening for gestational diabetes in patients with certain risk factors, including obesity, a history of first-degree relatives with diabetes, or a history of gestational diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, poor pregnancy outcomes, fetal demise, congenital abnormalities, or birth of an infant large for gestational age.

The researchers screened 7,126 patients for enrollment in the study from March 2017 through February 2019 and identified 600 who met the criteria: An adult with a singleton pregnancy and body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m². Patients were excluded if they had preexisting diabetes, elevated blood glucose or impaired glucose tolerance, a history of gestational diabetes, any chromosomal anomalies or abnormalities in the pregnancy, or were past 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The prospective randomized controlled trial was open label and included 296 patients who were randomly assigned to early screening with a 1-hour glucose challenge test (GCT) and hemoglobin A_1c before 20 weeks, followed by a 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test if the GCT result was between 140 and 200 mg/dL with an HbA_1c of less than 6.5%. The other 304 patients were screened with a 1-hour GCT between 24 and 28 weeks but also had an HbA_1c test before 20 weeks.

The primary outcome was macrosomia, defined as a birth weight at least 4,000 g, with various maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes. The only significant difference between the groups at baseline was a higher proportion of Hispanic participants in the early screening group (22.4%) compared to the routine screening group (13.7%).

The groups had no significant differences in birth weight or macrosomia, which occurred in 2.8% of the early screening group and 3.4% of the routine screening group (P = .7). There were no significant differences in gestational age at delivery, preeclampsia, polyhydramnios, shoulder dystocia, cesarean delivery, or NICU admission. However, the rate of gestational diabetes was significantly higher in the early screening group (22.5%) than in the routine screening group (15.7%; P < .05). In addition, more participants with gestational diabetes in the early screening group used insulin (34.4%) compared with those in the routine screening group (15.6%; P < .05).

Dr. Enakpene noted several reasons that the perinatal outcomes may have been similar between the groups, such as the increased rate of gestational diabetes requiring treatment in the early screening group or a higher proportion of participants using insulin in the early screening group.

“Hence, the similarity in adverse perinatal outcomes between the groups despite a higher proportion of gestational diabetes in the early group might be due to more utilization of insulin,” Dr. Enakpene said.

Dr. Richley was not surprised by the findings and hypothesized that the reason for not seeing a difference in outcomes might relate to using a 20-week cutoff for testing when type 2 diabetes would be evident at any stage of pregnancy.

“It would be interesting to have a study look at diabetes testing exclusively in the first trimester for high-risk patients that looks at neonatal outcomes and see if that would show a difference between the two groups,” Dr. Richley said.

Dr. Thompson was similarly interested in whether 20 weeks was an early enough time for early screening.

”I would also like to know the differences in management between the two groups and if the knowledge of early diagnosis impacted their management, such as timing of medication start, amount of medication required, and how that differed from the standard group,” Dr. Thompson said. ”Since patients with a hemoglobin A_1c > 6.5% or glucose tolerance test > 200 [mg/dL] were excluded, I’m interested in the number of patients that were excluded since they likely have undiagnosed preexisting diabetes, which are the patients that may benefit most from early screening.”

Dr. Richley pointed out that the potential clinical implications of the study are limited right now.

“While their secondary outcomes of neonatal hypoglycemia, method of delivery, and other common obstetrical measures were not different, we cannot draw conclusions from this as the study was not powered to evaluate these findings,” Dr. Richley said. “I do still see a role in early screening for patients with risk factors but favor doing so at the first prenatal visit, whenever that is, as opposed to as late as mid-second trimester, though this is often when a patient’s first interaction with a health care system will be within their pregnancy.”

Dr. Enakpene, Dr. Thompson, and Dr. Richley reported no disclosures. External funding for the study was not noted.

Methylergonovine is often used to control severe bleeding immediately after cesarean deliveries. But a new study suggests that the ergot alkaloid agent could benefit these women if administered before delivery, researchers from the University of Iowa Hospitals, Iowa City, reported in the January edition of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The data were presented Feb. 4 at the 2022 virtual Pregnancy Meeting of the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

The findings have prompted the institution to begin administering prophylactic methylergonovine in addition to oxytocin at the time of cesarean deliveries, according to the researchers.

“The addition of prophylactic methylergonovine improved uterine tone, decreased the requirement of additional uterotonic agents, decreased the risk of postpartum hemorrhage, and decreased the need for blood transfusions,” lead author Nicole Masse, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of Iowa, said in an interview.

Abnormal uterine tone is the leading cause of postpartum hemorrhage, Dr. Masse said. “Satisfactory uterine tone following delivery is essential. This study found a decreased need for blood transfusions in patients who received prophylactic methylergonovine. Given the risks of blood transfusions, which can include disease transmission and allergic reactions, transfusions should be avoided whenever possible.”

Conducted between June 2019 and February 2021, the single-center, randomized controlled trial of 160 women undergoing an intrapartum cesarean birth is the largest of its kind to date, Dr. Masse said. Women received either intravenous oxytocin at a dose of 300 mU per minute plus 1 mL of intramuscular normal saline (n = 80) or intravenous oxytocin at a dose of 300 mU per minute plus 0.2 mg (1 mL) of intramuscular methylergonovine (n = 80).

Women who received prophylactic methylergonovine required significantly less additional uterotonic agents than those who received oxytocin alone (20% vs. 55%; relative risk, 0.36; 95% confidence interval 0.22-0.59), according to the researchers. Those receiving methylergonovine were more likely to experience improved uterine tone (80% vs. 41.2%; RR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.46-2.56), a lower incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (35% vs. 58.8%; RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.42-0.85), decreased need for a blood transfusion (5% vs. 22.5%; RR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.63), and lower mean quantitative blood loss (996 mL vs. 1,315 mL; P = .004), they reported.      

“As the majority of postpartum hemorrhages are preventable, this study is clinically relevant and can serve to decrease the morbidity associated with postpartum hemorrhage,” Dr. Masse said.

Jennifer Choi, DO, clinical assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Stony Brook University Hospital, New York, said the Iowa team’s results are contrary to prior studies showing no benefit with simultaneous use of oxytocin and ergot alkaloids.    

“It would be interesting to see long-term benefits across a diverse population,” she said. “But as methylergonovine is a known contraindication to hypertensive and cardiovascular disorders, including pre-eclampsia, patients would have to be carefully screened.”

Kecia Gaither, MD, MPH, associate professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, called the study “a novel idea, but more research and higher numbers are needed for a substantive conclusion.”

Additional studies should look at variables such as the number of prior cesarean deliveries, body mass index, presence of uterine myomas, presence of abnormal placentation (placenta accreta, increta, percreta), and presence of multiple gestation, said Dr. Gaither, who also is director of perinatal services at NYC Health + Hospitals/Lincoln.

“Methergine [methylergonovine] use is contraindicated in women with hypertension/pre-eclampsia spectrum, mitral valve prolapse, history of coronary artery disease, and liver pathology,” she noted.

The researchers reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Methylergonovine is often used to control severe bleeding immediately after cesarean deliveries. But a new study suggests that the ergot alkaloid agent could benefit these women if administered before delivery, researchers from the University of Iowa Hospitals, Iowa City, reported in the January edition of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The data were presented Feb. 4 at the 2022 virtual Pregnancy Meeting of the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

The findings have prompted the institution to begin administering prophylactic methylergonovine in addition to oxytocin at the time of cesarean deliveries, according to the researchers.

“The addition of prophylactic methylergonovine improved uterine tone, decreased the requirement of additional uterotonic agents, decreased the risk of postpartum hemorrhage, and decreased the need for blood transfusions,” lead author Nicole Masse, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of Iowa, said in an interview.

Abnormal uterine tone is the leading cause of postpartum hemorrhage, Dr. Masse said. “Satisfactory uterine tone following delivery is essential. This study found a decreased need for blood transfusions in patients who received prophylactic methylergonovine. Given the risks of blood transfusions, which can include disease transmission and allergic reactions, transfusions should be avoided whenever possible.”

Conducted between June 2019 and February 2021, the single-center, randomized controlled trial of 160 women undergoing an intrapartum cesarean birth is the largest of its kind to date, Dr. Masse said. Women received either intravenous oxytocin at a dose of 300 mU per minute plus 1 mL of intramuscular normal saline (n = 80) or intravenous oxytocin at a dose of 300 mU per minute plus 0.2 mg (1 mL) of intramuscular methylergonovine (n = 80).

Women who received prophylactic methylergonovine required significantly less additional uterotonic agents than those who received oxytocin alone (20% vs. 55%; relative risk, 0.36; 95% confidence interval 0.22-0.59), according to the researchers. Those receiving methylergonovine were more likely to experience improved uterine tone (80% vs. 41.2%; RR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.46-2.56), a lower incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (35% vs. 58.8%; RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.42-0.85), decreased need for a blood transfusion (5% vs. 22.5%; RR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.63), and lower mean quantitative blood loss (996 mL vs. 1,315 mL; P = .004), they reported.      

“As the majority of postpartum hemorrhages are preventable, this study is clinically relevant and can serve to decrease the morbidity associated with postpartum hemorrhage,” Dr. Masse said.

Jennifer Choi, DO, clinical assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Stony Brook University Hospital, New York, said the Iowa team’s results are contrary to prior studies showing no benefit with simultaneous use of oxytocin and ergot alkaloids.    

“It would be interesting to see long-term benefits across a diverse population,” she said. “But as methylergonovine is a known contraindication to hypertensive and cardiovascular disorders, including pre-eclampsia, patients would have to be carefully screened.”

Kecia Gaither, MD, MPH, associate professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, called the study “a novel idea, but more research and higher numbers are needed for a substantive conclusion.”

Additional studies should look at variables such as the number of prior cesarean deliveries, body mass index, presence of uterine myomas, presence of abnormal placentation (placenta accreta, increta, percreta), and presence of multiple gestation, said Dr. Gaither, who also is director of perinatal services at NYC Health + Hospitals/Lincoln.

“Methergine [methylergonovine] use is contraindicated in women with hypertension/pre-eclampsia spectrum, mitral valve prolapse, history of coronary artery disease, and liver pathology,” she noted.

The researchers reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Methylergonovine is often used to control severe bleeding immediately after cesarean deliveries. But a new study suggests that the ergot alkaloid agent could benefit these women if administered before delivery, researchers from the University of Iowa Hospitals, Iowa City, reported in the January edition of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. The data were presented Feb. 4 at the 2022 virtual Pregnancy Meeting of the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

The findings have prompted the institution to begin administering prophylactic methylergonovine in addition to oxytocin at the time of cesarean deliveries, according to the researchers.

“The addition of prophylactic methylergonovine improved uterine tone, decreased the requirement of additional uterotonic agents, decreased the risk of postpartum hemorrhage, and decreased the need for blood transfusions,” lead author Nicole Masse, MD, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of Iowa, said in an interview.

Abnormal uterine tone is the leading cause of postpartum hemorrhage, Dr. Masse said. “Satisfactory uterine tone following delivery is essential. This study found a decreased need for blood transfusions in patients who received prophylactic methylergonovine. Given the risks of blood transfusions, which can include disease transmission and allergic reactions, transfusions should be avoided whenever possible.”

Conducted between June 2019 and February 2021, the single-center, randomized controlled trial of 160 women undergoing an intrapartum cesarean birth is the largest of its kind to date, Dr. Masse said. Women received either intravenous oxytocin at a dose of 300 mU per minute plus 1 mL of intramuscular normal saline (n = 80) or intravenous oxytocin at a dose of 300 mU per minute plus 0.2 mg (1 mL) of intramuscular methylergonovine (n = 80).

Women who received prophylactic methylergonovine required significantly less additional uterotonic agents than those who received oxytocin alone (20% vs. 55%; relative risk, 0.36; 95% confidence interval 0.22-0.59), according to the researchers. Those receiving methylergonovine were more likely to experience improved uterine tone (80% vs. 41.2%; RR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.46-2.56), a lower incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (35% vs. 58.8%; RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.42-0.85), decreased need for a blood transfusion (5% vs. 22.5%; RR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.63), and lower mean quantitative blood loss (996 mL vs. 1,315 mL; P = .004), they reported.      

“As the majority of postpartum hemorrhages are preventable, this study is clinically relevant and can serve to decrease the morbidity associated with postpartum hemorrhage,” Dr. Masse said.

Jennifer Choi, DO, clinical assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Stony Brook University Hospital, New York, said the Iowa team’s results are contrary to prior studies showing no benefit with simultaneous use of oxytocin and ergot alkaloids.    

“It would be interesting to see long-term benefits across a diverse population,” she said. “But as methylergonovine is a known contraindication to hypertensive and cardiovascular disorders, including pre-eclampsia, patients would have to be carefully screened.”

Kecia Gaither, MD, MPH, associate professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, called the study “a novel idea, but more research and higher numbers are needed for a substantive conclusion.”

Additional studies should look at variables such as the number of prior cesarean deliveries, body mass index, presence of uterine myomas, presence of abnormal placentation (placenta accreta, increta, percreta), and presence of multiple gestation, said Dr. Gaither, who also is director of perinatal services at NYC Health + Hospitals/Lincoln.

“Methergine [methylergonovine] use is contraindicated in women with hypertension/pre-eclampsia spectrum, mitral valve prolapse, history of coronary artery disease, and liver pathology,” she noted.

The researchers reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

A new study finding that samples from maternal urine and the meconium of their newborn babies frequently produce different results is raising more questions about drug testing of pregnant women.

The study found concerningly high rates of disagreement (or “discordance”) in biochemical testing between maternal urine in women with a documented history of or active drug use and the meconium in their newborns. In some cases, such discordance might be triggering the inappropriate intervention of childcare protective services, including the separation of infants from their mothers, according to the researchers, who presented their findings Feb. 4 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“There’s a very big debate right now in the obstetrics and perinatology communities about the utility of biochemical testing and the identification of high-risk women,” lead author Cassandra Heiselman, DO, MPH, clinical assistant professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive medicine at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, said in an interview. “We know that each biochemical test has limitations, which can include basically the inability to detect all substances, especially synthetic opioids like fentanyl, [and] the possibility for false results.”

Inaccuracies in testing can potentially result in inappropriate separation of mother and baby. “Careful scrutiny of results is needed,” Dr. Heiselman said.

The Stony Brook team conducted a retrospective cohort study that identified women presenting for delivery from January 2017 to March 2021 with indications for drug testing, including a known history of or current substance use disorder/misuse, and late or no prenatal care. A standardized panel was used for testing maternal urine and newborn meconium.

Urine tests of 327 women resulted in 187 (57%) positive and 98 (30%) negative results, along with 42 (13%) samples with incomplete data, the researchers reported. In contrast, drug testing of newborn meconium was positive in 273 (83%) cases, negative in 42 (13%), and was not performed in 12 (4%) – for a rate of concordance of 41%.

Concordance of urine/meconium occurred more frequently in male newborns (65%), compared with females (35%). “It is unclear biologically why there is such a difference based on the sex of the infants’ test and is an area that needs further investigation,” Dr. Heiselman said.

Comparing urine and meconium tests for 11 substances resulted in 195/483 (40%) concordance, the researchers said; 18% were discordant with positive maternal urine, and 41% were discordant with newborn positive meconium.

Oxycodone and fentanyl were significantly discordant with positive maternal urine. Cannabis use was the most common factor associated with a positive test of meconium, according to the researchers.

“Some studies have shown cannabis use in the second trimester can show up in meconium testing even if the mother has stopped that behavior,” Dr. Heiselman said. “Then there is also cross-reactivity with other substances that can lead to higher false positive results, especially in the urine toxicology.”

The reasons for the discordant results are not clear and vary by substance, Dr. Heiselman said.

“Cannabis and methadone were the significant factors leading to discordance with positive newborn meconium, which may reflect prior use earlier in pregnancy without recent use before delivery,” she said in an interview. “Urine and meconium reflect potentially different timing in perinatal exposure and the potential differences in windows of detection for different substances. Therefore, we would expect some discordance in our comparisons, just not the extent that we saw.”

Some test results might also have been false positives. Many commonly used medications, from cough syrups to proton pump inhibitors, have the potential to generate positive results for illicit drugs, Dr. Heiselman said.

“The issue of discordance is a complex one, where there are limitations of the tests being performed, possible cross-reactivity with false positives, and the difference in what test reflects as far as timing of prenatal exposure. Furthermore, a negative test does not rule out sporadic use, nor does a positive result diagnose substance use disorder or its severity,” she said.
 

Lack of standards

Dr. Heiselman said states and the federal government lack standards to biochemically evaluate women at risk for drug abuse and their newborns.

“My institution uses a risk-based protocol. Basically, we test cases where we have a known history of substance use disorder or active use, a history in the last 3 years of any kind of substance use, initiation of late prenatal care after 20 weeks, or no prenatal care at all,” she said. “And then the pediatricians on the other side will test neonates if the mother has any of that history or if the neonates themselves have unexplained complications or drug withdrawal symptoms.”

High rates of discordance can result in the inappropriate intervention by childcare protective service agencies when the mother may not have a substance use disorder, she noted.

Perinatologist Kecia Gaither, MD, MPH, associate professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, called the findings “no surprise,” but added that negative findings in neonates “do not exclude the possibility of substance abuse by the mother. It is important to recognize the limitations inherent with screening tests for illicit substances in neonates from substance-abusing mothers.”

Dr. Heiselman added that understanding what maternal and infant drug tests truly reflect “can help us as clinicians in deciding when we test, whether it’s medically necessary, instead of just thinking biochemical tests are the best screening tool, because we know that we are screening. We must engage these women in empathetic and nonjudgmental discussions, which often will elucidate a substance use disorder history more so than just biochemical testing, negative or positive.”

The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study finding that samples from maternal urine and the meconium of their newborn babies frequently produce different results is raising more questions about drug testing of pregnant women.

The study found concerningly high rates of disagreement (or “discordance”) in biochemical testing between maternal urine in women with a documented history of or active drug use and the meconium in their newborns. In some cases, such discordance might be triggering the inappropriate intervention of childcare protective services, including the separation of infants from their mothers, according to the researchers, who presented their findings Feb. 4 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“There’s a very big debate right now in the obstetrics and perinatology communities about the utility of biochemical testing and the identification of high-risk women,” lead author Cassandra Heiselman, DO, MPH, clinical assistant professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive medicine at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, said in an interview. “We know that each biochemical test has limitations, which can include basically the inability to detect all substances, especially synthetic opioids like fentanyl, [and] the possibility for false results.”

Inaccuracies in testing can potentially result in inappropriate separation of mother and baby. “Careful scrutiny of results is needed,” Dr. Heiselman said.

The Stony Brook team conducted a retrospective cohort study that identified women presenting for delivery from January 2017 to March 2021 with indications for drug testing, including a known history of or current substance use disorder/misuse, and late or no prenatal care. A standardized panel was used for testing maternal urine and newborn meconium.

Urine tests of 327 women resulted in 187 (57%) positive and 98 (30%) negative results, along with 42 (13%) samples with incomplete data, the researchers reported. In contrast, drug testing of newborn meconium was positive in 273 (83%) cases, negative in 42 (13%), and was not performed in 12 (4%) – for a rate of concordance of 41%.

Concordance of urine/meconium occurred more frequently in male newborns (65%), compared with females (35%). “It is unclear biologically why there is such a difference based on the sex of the infants’ test and is an area that needs further investigation,” Dr. Heiselman said.

Comparing urine and meconium tests for 11 substances resulted in 195/483 (40%) concordance, the researchers said; 18% were discordant with positive maternal urine, and 41% were discordant with newborn positive meconium.

Oxycodone and fentanyl were significantly discordant with positive maternal urine. Cannabis use was the most common factor associated with a positive test of meconium, according to the researchers.

“Some studies have shown cannabis use in the second trimester can show up in meconium testing even if the mother has stopped that behavior,” Dr. Heiselman said. “Then there is also cross-reactivity with other substances that can lead to higher false positive results, especially in the urine toxicology.”

The reasons for the discordant results are not clear and vary by substance, Dr. Heiselman said.

“Cannabis and methadone were the significant factors leading to discordance with positive newborn meconium, which may reflect prior use earlier in pregnancy without recent use before delivery,” she said in an interview. “Urine and meconium reflect potentially different timing in perinatal exposure and the potential differences in windows of detection for different substances. Therefore, we would expect some discordance in our comparisons, just not the extent that we saw.”

Some test results might also have been false positives. Many commonly used medications, from cough syrups to proton pump inhibitors, have the potential to generate positive results for illicit drugs, Dr. Heiselman said.

“The issue of discordance is a complex one, where there are limitations of the tests being performed, possible cross-reactivity with false positives, and the difference in what test reflects as far as timing of prenatal exposure. Furthermore, a negative test does not rule out sporadic use, nor does a positive result diagnose substance use disorder or its severity,” she said.
 

Lack of standards

Dr. Heiselman said states and the federal government lack standards to biochemically evaluate women at risk for drug abuse and their newborns.

“My institution uses a risk-based protocol. Basically, we test cases where we have a known history of substance use disorder or active use, a history in the last 3 years of any kind of substance use, initiation of late prenatal care after 20 weeks, or no prenatal care at all,” she said. “And then the pediatricians on the other side will test neonates if the mother has any of that history or if the neonates themselves have unexplained complications or drug withdrawal symptoms.”

High rates of discordance can result in the inappropriate intervention by childcare protective service agencies when the mother may not have a substance use disorder, she noted.

Perinatologist Kecia Gaither, MD, MPH, associate professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, called the findings “no surprise,” but added that negative findings in neonates “do not exclude the possibility of substance abuse by the mother. It is important to recognize the limitations inherent with screening tests for illicit substances in neonates from substance-abusing mothers.”

Dr. Heiselman added that understanding what maternal and infant drug tests truly reflect “can help us as clinicians in deciding when we test, whether it’s medically necessary, instead of just thinking biochemical tests are the best screening tool, because we know that we are screening. We must engage these women in empathetic and nonjudgmental discussions, which often will elucidate a substance use disorder history more so than just biochemical testing, negative or positive.”

The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study finding that samples from maternal urine and the meconium of their newborn babies frequently produce different results is raising more questions about drug testing of pregnant women.

The study found concerningly high rates of disagreement (or “discordance”) in biochemical testing between maternal urine in women with a documented history of or active drug use and the meconium in their newborns. In some cases, such discordance might be triggering the inappropriate intervention of childcare protective services, including the separation of infants from their mothers, according to the researchers, who presented their findings Feb. 4 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“There’s a very big debate right now in the obstetrics and perinatology communities about the utility of biochemical testing and the identification of high-risk women,” lead author Cassandra Heiselman, DO, MPH, clinical assistant professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive medicine at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, said in an interview. “We know that each biochemical test has limitations, which can include basically the inability to detect all substances, especially synthetic opioids like fentanyl, [and] the possibility for false results.”

Inaccuracies in testing can potentially result in inappropriate separation of mother and baby. “Careful scrutiny of results is needed,” Dr. Heiselman said.

The Stony Brook team conducted a retrospective cohort study that identified women presenting for delivery from January 2017 to March 2021 with indications for drug testing, including a known history of or current substance use disorder/misuse, and late or no prenatal care. A standardized panel was used for testing maternal urine and newborn meconium.

Urine tests of 327 women resulted in 187 (57%) positive and 98 (30%) negative results, along with 42 (13%) samples with incomplete data, the researchers reported. In contrast, drug testing of newborn meconium was positive in 273 (83%) cases, negative in 42 (13%), and was not performed in 12 (4%) – for a rate of concordance of 41%.

Concordance of urine/meconium occurred more frequently in male newborns (65%), compared with females (35%). “It is unclear biologically why there is such a difference based on the sex of the infants’ test and is an area that needs further investigation,” Dr. Heiselman said.

Comparing urine and meconium tests for 11 substances resulted in 195/483 (40%) concordance, the researchers said; 18% were discordant with positive maternal urine, and 41% were discordant with newborn positive meconium.

Oxycodone and fentanyl were significantly discordant with positive maternal urine. Cannabis use was the most common factor associated with a positive test of meconium, according to the researchers.

“Some studies have shown cannabis use in the second trimester can show up in meconium testing even if the mother has stopped that behavior,” Dr. Heiselman said. “Then there is also cross-reactivity with other substances that can lead to higher false positive results, especially in the urine toxicology.”

The reasons for the discordant results are not clear and vary by substance, Dr. Heiselman said.

“Cannabis and methadone were the significant factors leading to discordance with positive newborn meconium, which may reflect prior use earlier in pregnancy without recent use before delivery,” she said in an interview. “Urine and meconium reflect potentially different timing in perinatal exposure and the potential differences in windows of detection for different substances. Therefore, we would expect some discordance in our comparisons, just not the extent that we saw.”

Some test results might also have been false positives. Many commonly used medications, from cough syrups to proton pump inhibitors, have the potential to generate positive results for illicit drugs, Dr. Heiselman said.

“The issue of discordance is a complex one, where there are limitations of the tests being performed, possible cross-reactivity with false positives, and the difference in what test reflects as far as timing of prenatal exposure. Furthermore, a negative test does not rule out sporadic use, nor does a positive result diagnose substance use disorder or its severity,” she said.
 

Lack of standards

Dr. Heiselman said states and the federal government lack standards to biochemically evaluate women at risk for drug abuse and their newborns.

“My institution uses a risk-based protocol. Basically, we test cases where we have a known history of substance use disorder or active use, a history in the last 3 years of any kind of substance use, initiation of late prenatal care after 20 weeks, or no prenatal care at all,” she said. “And then the pediatricians on the other side will test neonates if the mother has any of that history or if the neonates themselves have unexplained complications or drug withdrawal symptoms.”

High rates of discordance can result in the inappropriate intervention by childcare protective service agencies when the mother may not have a substance use disorder, she noted.

Perinatologist Kecia Gaither, MD, MPH, associate professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, called the findings “no surprise,” but added that negative findings in neonates “do not exclude the possibility of substance abuse by the mother. It is important to recognize the limitations inherent with screening tests for illicit substances in neonates from substance-abusing mothers.”

Dr. Heiselman added that understanding what maternal and infant drug tests truly reflect “can help us as clinicians in deciding when we test, whether it’s medically necessary, instead of just thinking biochemical tests are the best screening tool, because we know that we are screening. We must engage these women in empathetic and nonjudgmental discussions, which often will elucidate a substance use disorder history more so than just biochemical testing, negative or positive.”

The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Members of the LGBTQ community who give birth appear to have a greater risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and postpartum hemorrhage, according to new research presented at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“Our study found that birthing patients in likely sexual and gender minority partnerships experienced disparities in clinical outcomes,” Stephanie Leonard, PhD, an epidemiology and biostatistics instructor at the Stanford (Calif.) University division of maternal-fetal medicine and obstetrics, told attendees at the meeting. The disparities are likely because of various social determinants and possibly higher use of assisted reproductive technology (ART). The findings establish “how these are significant disparities that have been largely overlooked and set the groundwork for doing further research on maybe ways that we can improve the inclusivity of obstetric care.”

Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research, said the findings were “overall unfortunate but not surprising given the existing studies looking at LGBTQ patients and their poorer health outcomes, largely due to lack of access to health care and discrimination in the health care setting.”

Dr. Leonard described the societal, interpersonal, and individual factors that can contribute to health disparities among gender and sexual minority patients.

“At the societal level, there are expectations of what it means to be pregnant, to give birth, and to be a parent. At the community level, there’s the clinical care environment, and at the interpersonal level, there’s an obstetrician’s relationship with the patient,” Dr. Leonard said. “At the individual level, most notably is minority stress, the biological effects of the chronic experience of discrimination.”

It has historically been difficult to collect data on this patient population, but a change in the design of the California birth certificate made it possible to gather more data than previously possible. The updated California birth certificate, issued in 2016, allows the parent not giving birth to check off whether they are the child’s mother, father, parent, or “not specified” instead of defaulting to “father.” In addition, the parent giving birth can select mother, father, parent or not specified instead of being “mother” by default.

The researchers classified sexual and gender minority (SGM) partnerships as those in which the parent giving birth was identified as the father and those where both parents were identified as mothers. Non-SGM minority partnerships were those in which the birthing parent was identified as the mother and the nonbirthing parent was identified as the father.

The population-based cohort study included data from all live birth hospitalizations from 2016-2019 in California, whose annual births represent one in eight babies born each year in the United States. The population of SGM patients different significantly from the non-SGM population in nearly every demographic and clinical factor except rates of pre-existing diabetes. For example, 42% of the SGM birthing patients were age 35 or older, compared with 23% of the non-SGM patients.

SGM patients were more likely to be born in the United States, were more likely to be White, and were less likely to be Asian or Hispanic. SGM patients had higher education levels and were more likely to have private insurance. They were also more likely to be nulliparous and have chronic hypertension. Average body mass index for SGM patients was 33 kg/m², compared with 30 for non-SGM patients. SGM patients were also much more likely to have multifetal gestation: 7.1% of SGM patients versus 1.5% of non-SGM patients.

In terms of clinical outcomes, 14% of SGM patients had hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, compared with 8% of non-SGM patients. Before adjustment for potential confounders, SGM patients were also twice as likely to have postpartum hemorrhage (8% vs. 4% in non-SGM patients) and postterm birth at 42-44 weeks (0.6% vs 0.3% in non-SGM patients).

“Having increased postterm birth is a matter of declining induction of labor, as it is recommended to have an induction by 41 weeks of gestation in general,” Dr. Mei said in an interview. “It is also possible this patient cohort faces more barriers in access to care and possible discrimination as sexual/gender minority patients.”

Rates of severe preeclampsia, induction of labor, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, low birth weight, and a low Apgar score were also higher among SGM patients, but these associations were no longer significant after adjustment for age, education, payment method, parity, prepregnancy weight, comorbidities, and multifetal gestation. The difference in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, postpartum hemorrhage, and postterm birth remained statistically significant after adjustment.

Past research has shown that only about a third of cisgender female same-sex marriages used ART, so the disparities cannot be completely explained by ART use, Dr. Leonard said.

“I think the main drivers are structural disparities,” Dr. Leonard said. “Every obstetric clinic is focused in a way that’s about mother-father, and many people who don’t feel like they fit into that paradigm feel excluded and disengage with health care.”

Elliott Main, MD, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford University and coauthor of the study noted that discrimination and stigma likely play a substantial role in the disparities.

“Sexual and/or gender minority people face this discrimination at structural and interpersonal levels on a regular basis, which can lead to chronic stress and its harmful physical effects as well as lower-quality health care,” Dr. Main said in an interview.

Another coauthor, Juno Obedin-Maliver, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford, emphasized how much room for improvement exists in care for SGM obstetric patients.

“We hope that this study brings needed attention to the disparities in perinatal health experienced by sexual and/or gender minority people,” Dr. Obedin-Maliver said. “There is much we can do to better understand the family building goals of sexual and/or gender minority people and help those to be achieved with healthy outcomes for parents and their children.”

One limitation of the study is that it’s possible to misclassify individuals using the birth certificate data, and not everyone may be comfortable selecting the box that accurately represents their identity, particularly if they aren’t “out” or fear discrimination or stigma, so the population may underrepresent the actual numbers of sexual and gender minority individuals giving birth. Dr. Mei added that it would be helpful to see data on neonatal ICU admissions and use of ART.

It’s difficult to say how generalizable the findings are, Dr. Mei said. “It is possible the findings would be more exaggerated in the rest of the country outside of California, if we assume there is potentially lower health access and more stigma.” The fact that California offers different gender options for the birthing and nonbirthing parent is, by itself, an indication of a potentially more accepting social environment than might be found in other states.

”The take-home message is that this patient population is higher risk, likely partially due to baseline increased risk factors, such as older maternal age and likely use of ART, and partially due to possible lack of health access and stigma,” Dr. Mei said. “Health care providers should be notably cognizant of these increased risks, particularly in the psychosocial context and make efforts to reduce those burdens as much as possible.”

The research was funded by the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute. Dr. Obedin-Maliver has consulted for Sage Therapeutics, Ibis Reproductive Health, and Hims. Dr. Mei and the other authors had no disclosures.

Members of the LGBTQ community who give birth appear to have a greater risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and postpartum hemorrhage, according to new research presented at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“Our study found that birthing patients in likely sexual and gender minority partnerships experienced disparities in clinical outcomes,” Stephanie Leonard, PhD, an epidemiology and biostatistics instructor at the Stanford (Calif.) University division of maternal-fetal medicine and obstetrics, told attendees at the meeting. The disparities are likely because of various social determinants and possibly higher use of assisted reproductive technology (ART). The findings establish “how these are significant disparities that have been largely overlooked and set the groundwork for doing further research on maybe ways that we can improve the inclusivity of obstetric care.”

Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research, said the findings were “overall unfortunate but not surprising given the existing studies looking at LGBTQ patients and their poorer health outcomes, largely due to lack of access to health care and discrimination in the health care setting.”

Dr. Leonard described the societal, interpersonal, and individual factors that can contribute to health disparities among gender and sexual minority patients.

“At the societal level, there are expectations of what it means to be pregnant, to give birth, and to be a parent. At the community level, there’s the clinical care environment, and at the interpersonal level, there’s an obstetrician’s relationship with the patient,” Dr. Leonard said. “At the individual level, most notably is minority stress, the biological effects of the chronic experience of discrimination.”

It has historically been difficult to collect data on this patient population, but a change in the design of the California birth certificate made it possible to gather more data than previously possible. The updated California birth certificate, issued in 2016, allows the parent not giving birth to check off whether they are the child’s mother, father, parent, or “not specified” instead of defaulting to “father.” In addition, the parent giving birth can select mother, father, parent or not specified instead of being “mother” by default.

The researchers classified sexual and gender minority (SGM) partnerships as those in which the parent giving birth was identified as the father and those where both parents were identified as mothers. Non-SGM minority partnerships were those in which the birthing parent was identified as the mother and the nonbirthing parent was identified as the father.

The population-based cohort study included data from all live birth hospitalizations from 2016-2019 in California, whose annual births represent one in eight babies born each year in the United States. The population of SGM patients different significantly from the non-SGM population in nearly every demographic and clinical factor except rates of pre-existing diabetes. For example, 42% of the SGM birthing patients were age 35 or older, compared with 23% of the non-SGM patients.

SGM patients were more likely to be born in the United States, were more likely to be White, and were less likely to be Asian or Hispanic. SGM patients had higher education levels and were more likely to have private insurance. They were also more likely to be nulliparous and have chronic hypertension. Average body mass index for SGM patients was 33 kg/m², compared with 30 for non-SGM patients. SGM patients were also much more likely to have multifetal gestation: 7.1% of SGM patients versus 1.5% of non-SGM patients.

In terms of clinical outcomes, 14% of SGM patients had hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, compared with 8% of non-SGM patients. Before adjustment for potential confounders, SGM patients were also twice as likely to have postpartum hemorrhage (8% vs. 4% in non-SGM patients) and postterm birth at 42-44 weeks (0.6% vs 0.3% in non-SGM patients).

“Having increased postterm birth is a matter of declining induction of labor, as it is recommended to have an induction by 41 weeks of gestation in general,” Dr. Mei said in an interview. “It is also possible this patient cohort faces more barriers in access to care and possible discrimination as sexual/gender minority patients.”

Rates of severe preeclampsia, induction of labor, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, low birth weight, and a low Apgar score were also higher among SGM patients, but these associations were no longer significant after adjustment for age, education, payment method, parity, prepregnancy weight, comorbidities, and multifetal gestation. The difference in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, postpartum hemorrhage, and postterm birth remained statistically significant after adjustment.

Past research has shown that only about a third of cisgender female same-sex marriages used ART, so the disparities cannot be completely explained by ART use, Dr. Leonard said.

“I think the main drivers are structural disparities,” Dr. Leonard said. “Every obstetric clinic is focused in a way that’s about mother-father, and many people who don’t feel like they fit into that paradigm feel excluded and disengage with health care.”

Elliott Main, MD, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford University and coauthor of the study noted that discrimination and stigma likely play a substantial role in the disparities.

“Sexual and/or gender minority people face this discrimination at structural and interpersonal levels on a regular basis, which can lead to chronic stress and its harmful physical effects as well as lower-quality health care,” Dr. Main said in an interview.

Another coauthor, Juno Obedin-Maliver, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford, emphasized how much room for improvement exists in care for SGM obstetric patients.

“We hope that this study brings needed attention to the disparities in perinatal health experienced by sexual and/or gender minority people,” Dr. Obedin-Maliver said. “There is much we can do to better understand the family building goals of sexual and/or gender minority people and help those to be achieved with healthy outcomes for parents and their children.”

One limitation of the study is that it’s possible to misclassify individuals using the birth certificate data, and not everyone may be comfortable selecting the box that accurately represents their identity, particularly if they aren’t “out” or fear discrimination or stigma, so the population may underrepresent the actual numbers of sexual and gender minority individuals giving birth. Dr. Mei added that it would be helpful to see data on neonatal ICU admissions and use of ART.

It’s difficult to say how generalizable the findings are, Dr. Mei said. “It is possible the findings would be more exaggerated in the rest of the country outside of California, if we assume there is potentially lower health access and more stigma.” The fact that California offers different gender options for the birthing and nonbirthing parent is, by itself, an indication of a potentially more accepting social environment than might be found in other states.

”The take-home message is that this patient population is higher risk, likely partially due to baseline increased risk factors, such as older maternal age and likely use of ART, and partially due to possible lack of health access and stigma,” Dr. Mei said. “Health care providers should be notably cognizant of these increased risks, particularly in the psychosocial context and make efforts to reduce those burdens as much as possible.”

The research was funded by the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute. Dr. Obedin-Maliver has consulted for Sage Therapeutics, Ibis Reproductive Health, and Hims. Dr. Mei and the other authors had no disclosures.

Members of the LGBTQ community who give birth appear to have a greater risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and postpartum hemorrhage, according to new research presented at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“Our study found that birthing patients in likely sexual and gender minority partnerships experienced disparities in clinical outcomes,” Stephanie Leonard, PhD, an epidemiology and biostatistics instructor at the Stanford (Calif.) University division of maternal-fetal medicine and obstetrics, told attendees at the meeting. The disparities are likely because of various social determinants and possibly higher use of assisted reproductive technology (ART). The findings establish “how these are significant disparities that have been largely overlooked and set the groundwork for doing further research on maybe ways that we can improve the inclusivity of obstetric care.”

Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research, said the findings were “overall unfortunate but not surprising given the existing studies looking at LGBTQ patients and their poorer health outcomes, largely due to lack of access to health care and discrimination in the health care setting.”

Dr. Leonard described the societal, interpersonal, and individual factors that can contribute to health disparities among gender and sexual minority patients.

“At the societal level, there are expectations of what it means to be pregnant, to give birth, and to be a parent. At the community level, there’s the clinical care environment, and at the interpersonal level, there’s an obstetrician’s relationship with the patient,” Dr. Leonard said. “At the individual level, most notably is minority stress, the biological effects of the chronic experience of discrimination.”

It has historically been difficult to collect data on this patient population, but a change in the design of the California birth certificate made it possible to gather more data than previously possible. The updated California birth certificate, issued in 2016, allows the parent not giving birth to check off whether they are the child’s mother, father, parent, or “not specified” instead of defaulting to “father.” In addition, the parent giving birth can select mother, father, parent or not specified instead of being “mother” by default.

The researchers classified sexual and gender minority (SGM) partnerships as those in which the parent giving birth was identified as the father and those where both parents were identified as mothers. Non-SGM minority partnerships were those in which the birthing parent was identified as the mother and the nonbirthing parent was identified as the father.

The population-based cohort study included data from all live birth hospitalizations from 2016-2019 in California, whose annual births represent one in eight babies born each year in the United States. The population of SGM patients different significantly from the non-SGM population in nearly every demographic and clinical factor except rates of pre-existing diabetes. For example, 42% of the SGM birthing patients were age 35 or older, compared with 23% of the non-SGM patients.

SGM patients were more likely to be born in the United States, were more likely to be White, and were less likely to be Asian or Hispanic. SGM patients had higher education levels and were more likely to have private insurance. They were also more likely to be nulliparous and have chronic hypertension. Average body mass index for SGM patients was 33 kg/m², compared with 30 for non-SGM patients. SGM patients were also much more likely to have multifetal gestation: 7.1% of SGM patients versus 1.5% of non-SGM patients.

In terms of clinical outcomes, 14% of SGM patients had hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, compared with 8% of non-SGM patients. Before adjustment for potential confounders, SGM patients were also twice as likely to have postpartum hemorrhage (8% vs. 4% in non-SGM patients) and postterm birth at 42-44 weeks (0.6% vs 0.3% in non-SGM patients).

“Having increased postterm birth is a matter of declining induction of labor, as it is recommended to have an induction by 41 weeks of gestation in general,” Dr. Mei said in an interview. “It is also possible this patient cohort faces more barriers in access to care and possible discrimination as sexual/gender minority patients.”

Rates of severe preeclampsia, induction of labor, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, low birth weight, and a low Apgar score were also higher among SGM patients, but these associations were no longer significant after adjustment for age, education, payment method, parity, prepregnancy weight, comorbidities, and multifetal gestation. The difference in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, postpartum hemorrhage, and postterm birth remained statistically significant after adjustment.

Past research has shown that only about a third of cisgender female same-sex marriages used ART, so the disparities cannot be completely explained by ART use, Dr. Leonard said.

“I think the main drivers are structural disparities,” Dr. Leonard said. “Every obstetric clinic is focused in a way that’s about mother-father, and many people who don’t feel like they fit into that paradigm feel excluded and disengage with health care.”

Elliott Main, MD, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford University and coauthor of the study noted that discrimination and stigma likely play a substantial role in the disparities.

“Sexual and/or gender minority people face this discrimination at structural and interpersonal levels on a regular basis, which can lead to chronic stress and its harmful physical effects as well as lower-quality health care,” Dr. Main said in an interview.

Another coauthor, Juno Obedin-Maliver, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford, emphasized how much room for improvement exists in care for SGM obstetric patients.

“We hope that this study brings needed attention to the disparities in perinatal health experienced by sexual and/or gender minority people,” Dr. Obedin-Maliver said. “There is much we can do to better understand the family building goals of sexual and/or gender minority people and help those to be achieved with healthy outcomes for parents and their children.”

One limitation of the study is that it’s possible to misclassify individuals using the birth certificate data, and not everyone may be comfortable selecting the box that accurately represents their identity, particularly if they aren’t “out” or fear discrimination or stigma, so the population may underrepresent the actual numbers of sexual and gender minority individuals giving birth. Dr. Mei added that it would be helpful to see data on neonatal ICU admissions and use of ART.

It’s difficult to say how generalizable the findings are, Dr. Mei said. “It is possible the findings would be more exaggerated in the rest of the country outside of California, if we assume there is potentially lower health access and more stigma.” The fact that California offers different gender options for the birthing and nonbirthing parent is, by itself, an indication of a potentially more accepting social environment than might be found in other states.

”The take-home message is that this patient population is higher risk, likely partially due to baseline increased risk factors, such as older maternal age and likely use of ART, and partially due to possible lack of health access and stigma,” Dr. Mei said. “Health care providers should be notably cognizant of these increased risks, particularly in the psychosocial context and make efforts to reduce those burdens as much as possible.”

The research was funded by the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute. Dr. Obedin-Maliver has consulted for Sage Therapeutics, Ibis Reproductive Health, and Hims. Dr. Mei and the other authors had no disclosures.

The potential effectiveness of using vaginal progesterone to prevent preterm birth in two different populations was the focus of a pair of studies with mixed results at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine on Feb. 3. One study found no benefit from vaginal progesterone in those with first trimester bleeding, while the other, in a head-to-head comparison with 17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC), found vaginal progesterone performs similarly to 17-OHPC in singleton pregnancies with a history of preterm birth.

While the first study does not suggest any changes in clinical practice, the second one suggests that vaginal progesterone is an alternative to 17-OHPC, as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists currently recommends. SMFM currently only includes 17-OHPC in its guidelines.

“In otherwise low-risk pregnancies with first trimester bleeding, progesterone should not be prescribed for the prevention of miscarriage or prematurity,” Haim A. Abenhaim, MD, MPH, of the Jewish General Hospital at McGill University, Montreal, told attendees in his presentation.

”Publishing the negative result is so important because this helps the overall body of literature reduce the amount of publication bias that exists in the literature,” Michael Richley, MD, an ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Richley was not involved in the research but attended the presentation.
 

Vaginal progesterone for first trimester bleeding

Most preterm birth occurs in pregnancies with no identifiable risk factors, but first-trimester bleeding may indicate subchorionic hemorrhage from placental detachment, which can increase the risk of preterm birth. Other risk factors where progesterone has previously shown effectiveness in reducing preterm birth risk include short cervix and a history of prior preterm birth.

The first study (PREEMPT) was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted at six Canadian hospitals with 533 women. The participants all experienced bleeding within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy and a documented subchorionic hemorrhage. The trial excluded those who already required progesterone, had contraindications to progesterone or had an alternate cause of bleeding.

The intervention group included 264 women randomly assigned to use 200 mg of micronized progesterone administered with a vaginal suppository at bedtime, while the placebo group included 269 women who used a vaginal suppository with no medication, both administered until 34 weeks of pregnancy. The groups were not significantly different in age, race, or former pregnancies, live births, and miscarriages. They were also similar in clinical characteristics of bleeding and subchorionic hemorrhage.

The proportion of term births was similar between the progesterone (74.6%) and placebo (70.6%) groups (P =.3), as was the proportion of preterm births (10.2% progesterone vs. 12.3% placebo, P =.46). There were also no significant differences in the secondary outcomes of cramping, hospital admission, bed rest, or preventive measures, including pessary, cerclage, antibiotics, magnesium, and nifedipine. Newborns across both groups were statistically similar in average birth weight and distribution of birth weights and in incidence of neonatal ICU admission or respiratory distress syndrome. Adverse events were similar across both groups.

”The results are not surprising as several studies in the past have shown similar lack of efficacy,” Dr. said. “The pathophysiology of subchorionic hematoma is different from the multifactorial etiologies of spontaneous preterm birth, and given our lack of clear understanding of the actions of progesterone, the lack of efficacy in this subgroup with subchorionic hematoma is not surprising.”

Dr. Richley did note that having a low-risk population to start with may have affected the findings, which might be different in a high-risk population.

“I don’t believe this will change anything within clinical practice. At this time, progesterone is not used in any form in the setting of first trimester threatened abortion by maternal-fetal medicine specialists,” Dr. Richley said. “There may be other subgroups of clinicians who do prescribe progesterone in this setting, and these data should further encourage them to move away from this practice.”

Dr. Abenhaim noted a couple unexpected issues that occurred during the course of the study, such as underreporting of subchorionic hemorrhage with radiologic confirmation that resulted in a smaller population and a change in protocol to include patients with no identifiable secondary source of bleeding. The pandemic also halted enrollment, and the investigators halted the trial when recruitment could have continued since interim analysis showed no likely benefit.

Though first trimester bleeding is associated with a 25%-30% increased risk of miscarriage or preterm birth, the findings showed that progesterone did not prevent miscarriage or prematurity, or increase the live birth rate, in low-risk patients with first trimester bleeding.
 

Vaginal progesterone vs. 17-OHPC

Although a 2017 meta-analysis had found vaginal progesterone to be superior to 17-OHPC in preventing preterm birth, few studies were available, and they had wide confidence intervals. This open-label randomized controlled trial took place at five U.S. sites and included participants who had a singleton pregnancy less than 24 weeks along and a history of singleton preterm birth between 16 and 37 weeks. The trials excluded those with placenta previa or accreta, preterm labor, preterm premature rupture of the membranes, clinical chorioamnionitis, or a major fetal anomaly or chromosomal disorder.

Among 205 women initially randomized, 94 in each group completed the trial, either inserting 200 mg of micronized progesterone daily with a vaginal suppository or receiving 250 mg of weekly intramuscular injections of 17-OHPC from 16 to 36 weeks’ gestation. The only significant difference between the groups in demographics or clinical features was that the vaginal progesterone group had a higher proportion of multiple past preterm births (33%) compared with the 17-OHPC group (17%). Cervical length and use of cerclage were also similar between the groups.

Though 30.9% of the vaginal progesterone group delivered preterm before 37 weeks, compared with 38.3% in the 17-OHPC group, the difference was not significant (P =.28). There was a borderline statistical difference between gestational age at delivery: 37.4 weeks in the vaginal progesterone group versus 36.3 weeks in the 17-OHPC group (P =.047). Neonatal outcomes were clinically similar between the two groups. Therapy initiation did slightly differ between the groups, with an average start 1 gestational week earlier in the vaginal progesterone group (16.9 vs. 17.8, P =.001) and a higher proportion of patients in the 17-OHPC group initiating therapy after 20 weeks (16.5% vs. 2.2%, P =.001). Adherence was otherwise similar between the groups, and the groups reported similar rates and types of side effects.

The trial did not meet the primary endpoint of vaginal progesterone reducing risk of recurrent preterm birth by 50%, compared with 17-OHPC, but it may increase latency to delivery, Rupsa C. Boelig, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told attendees. Though this was the largest trial to compare vaginal progesterone with 17-OHPC for preventing preterm birth, it was underpowered to detect a difference in efficacy, to conduct subgroup analyses, and to assess secondary outcomes, Dr. Boelig noted. “Baseline difference in preterm birth risk may affect apparent relative efficacy of vaginal progesterone.”

Nevertheless, the “totality of evidence appears to be greater for vaginal progesterone,” Dr. Boelig said, making vaginal progesterone an acceptable alternative to 17-OHPC. ACOG recommendations currently include offering either, but SMFM recommendations only mention 17-OHPC.

It’s worth noting, however, that the future of 17-OHPC, a synthetic compound, compared with naturally occurring micronized progesterone, continues to be uncertain following a 2020 study that found no evidence of its efficacy, leading the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw its approval for prevention of preterm birth. ”These findings are important especially in light of the controversy surrounding 17-OHP,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at UCLA, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “It is also sometimes difficult for patients to commit to weekly 17-OHPC injections, which requires time and many doctors visits, as compared to vaginal progesterone, which patients can administer at home.” Since this study does not have a placebo group, “it does not address the question of the overall efficacy of either medication compared to a control,” Dr. Mei said. ”It is also a somewhat small patient population so the results may change with a larger population. The authors conclude it is worth readdressing the use of vaginal progesterone for these patients.”

Herman L. Hedriana, MD, professor and director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and the maternal-fetal medicine fellowship program at the University of California, Davis, also pointed out notable differences between the two compounds.

“One has to remember that the formulation and mechanism of action are very different between 17-OHPC and the vaginal application of micronized progesterone. We do not have enough data to say one is superior versus the other,” said Dr. Hedriana, who was not involved in the research. “With 17-OHPC, the mechanism of action appears to be influenced by how the drug is metabolized based on race and ethnicity makeup, and may be influence by epigenetics,” while the mechanism for vaginal progesterone is probably local “given it is applied directly next to the cervix; hence, the results are it is effective in short cervices.” But those differing mechanisms don’t change the clinical significance of the findings. “One can use vaginal progesterone or 17-OHPC based on patient preference and availability,” Dr. Hedriana said.

The researchers of both studies reported no personal financial or industry disclosures, though Dr. Boelig disclosed that she had taken 17-OHPC and had cerclages during both her pregnancies, which resulted in healthy children today. The PREEMPT trial was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The head-to-head trial was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Development, the March of Dimes, the EW Thrasher Foundation, the PhRMA Foundation, and Covis Pharma, who manufactures the 17-OHPC drug Makena.

This story was updated on 2/8/2022.

The potential effectiveness of using vaginal progesterone to prevent preterm birth in two different populations was the focus of a pair of studies with mixed results at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine on Feb. 3. One study found no benefit from vaginal progesterone in those with first trimester bleeding, while the other, in a head-to-head comparison with 17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC), found vaginal progesterone performs similarly to 17-OHPC in singleton pregnancies with a history of preterm birth.

While the first study does not suggest any changes in clinical practice, the second one suggests that vaginal progesterone is an alternative to 17-OHPC, as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists currently recommends. SMFM currently only includes 17-OHPC in its guidelines.

“In otherwise low-risk pregnancies with first trimester bleeding, progesterone should not be prescribed for the prevention of miscarriage or prematurity,” Haim A. Abenhaim, MD, MPH, of the Jewish General Hospital at McGill University, Montreal, told attendees in his presentation.

”Publishing the negative result is so important because this helps the overall body of literature reduce the amount of publication bias that exists in the literature,” Michael Richley, MD, an ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Richley was not involved in the research but attended the presentation.
 

Vaginal progesterone for first trimester bleeding

Most preterm birth occurs in pregnancies with no identifiable risk factors, but first-trimester bleeding may indicate subchorionic hemorrhage from placental detachment, which can increase the risk of preterm birth. Other risk factors where progesterone has previously shown effectiveness in reducing preterm birth risk include short cervix and a history of prior preterm birth.

The first study (PREEMPT) was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted at six Canadian hospitals with 533 women. The participants all experienced bleeding within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy and a documented subchorionic hemorrhage. The trial excluded those who already required progesterone, had contraindications to progesterone or had an alternate cause of bleeding.

The intervention group included 264 women randomly assigned to use 200 mg of micronized progesterone administered with a vaginal suppository at bedtime, while the placebo group included 269 women who used a vaginal suppository with no medication, both administered until 34 weeks of pregnancy. The groups were not significantly different in age, race, or former pregnancies, live births, and miscarriages. They were also similar in clinical characteristics of bleeding and subchorionic hemorrhage.

The proportion of term births was similar between the progesterone (74.6%) and placebo (70.6%) groups (P =.3), as was the proportion of preterm births (10.2% progesterone vs. 12.3% placebo, P =.46). There were also no significant differences in the secondary outcomes of cramping, hospital admission, bed rest, or preventive measures, including pessary, cerclage, antibiotics, magnesium, and nifedipine. Newborns across both groups were statistically similar in average birth weight and distribution of birth weights and in incidence of neonatal ICU admission or respiratory distress syndrome. Adverse events were similar across both groups.

”The results are not surprising as several studies in the past have shown similar lack of efficacy,” Dr. said. “The pathophysiology of subchorionic hematoma is different from the multifactorial etiologies of spontaneous preterm birth, and given our lack of clear understanding of the actions of progesterone, the lack of efficacy in this subgroup with subchorionic hematoma is not surprising.”

Dr. Richley did note that having a low-risk population to start with may have affected the findings, which might be different in a high-risk population.

“I don’t believe this will change anything within clinical practice. At this time, progesterone is not used in any form in the setting of first trimester threatened abortion by maternal-fetal medicine specialists,” Dr. Richley said. “There may be other subgroups of clinicians who do prescribe progesterone in this setting, and these data should further encourage them to move away from this practice.”

Dr. Abenhaim noted a couple unexpected issues that occurred during the course of the study, such as underreporting of subchorionic hemorrhage with radiologic confirmation that resulted in a smaller population and a change in protocol to include patients with no identifiable secondary source of bleeding. The pandemic also halted enrollment, and the investigators halted the trial when recruitment could have continued since interim analysis showed no likely benefit.

Though first trimester bleeding is associated with a 25%-30% increased risk of miscarriage or preterm birth, the findings showed that progesterone did not prevent miscarriage or prematurity, or increase the live birth rate, in low-risk patients with first trimester bleeding.
 

Vaginal progesterone vs. 17-OHPC

Although a 2017 meta-analysis had found vaginal progesterone to be superior to 17-OHPC in preventing preterm birth, few studies were available, and they had wide confidence intervals. This open-label randomized controlled trial took place at five U.S. sites and included participants who had a singleton pregnancy less than 24 weeks along and a history of singleton preterm birth between 16 and 37 weeks. The trials excluded those with placenta previa or accreta, preterm labor, preterm premature rupture of the membranes, clinical chorioamnionitis, or a major fetal anomaly or chromosomal disorder.

Among 205 women initially randomized, 94 in each group completed the trial, either inserting 200 mg of micronized progesterone daily with a vaginal suppository or receiving 250 mg of weekly intramuscular injections of 17-OHPC from 16 to 36 weeks’ gestation. The only significant difference between the groups in demographics or clinical features was that the vaginal progesterone group had a higher proportion of multiple past preterm births (33%) compared with the 17-OHPC group (17%). Cervical length and use of cerclage were also similar between the groups.

Though 30.9% of the vaginal progesterone group delivered preterm before 37 weeks, compared with 38.3% in the 17-OHPC group, the difference was not significant (P =.28). There was a borderline statistical difference between gestational age at delivery: 37.4 weeks in the vaginal progesterone group versus 36.3 weeks in the 17-OHPC group (P =.047). Neonatal outcomes were clinically similar between the two groups. Therapy initiation did slightly differ between the groups, with an average start 1 gestational week earlier in the vaginal progesterone group (16.9 vs. 17.8, P =.001) and a higher proportion of patients in the 17-OHPC group initiating therapy after 20 weeks (16.5% vs. 2.2%, P =.001). Adherence was otherwise similar between the groups, and the groups reported similar rates and types of side effects.

The trial did not meet the primary endpoint of vaginal progesterone reducing risk of recurrent preterm birth by 50%, compared with 17-OHPC, but it may increase latency to delivery, Rupsa C. Boelig, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told attendees. Though this was the largest trial to compare vaginal progesterone with 17-OHPC for preventing preterm birth, it was underpowered to detect a difference in efficacy, to conduct subgroup analyses, and to assess secondary outcomes, Dr. Boelig noted. “Baseline difference in preterm birth risk may affect apparent relative efficacy of vaginal progesterone.”

Nevertheless, the “totality of evidence appears to be greater for vaginal progesterone,” Dr. Boelig said, making vaginal progesterone an acceptable alternative to 17-OHPC. ACOG recommendations currently include offering either, but SMFM recommendations only mention 17-OHPC.

It’s worth noting, however, that the future of 17-OHPC, a synthetic compound, compared with naturally occurring micronized progesterone, continues to be uncertain following a 2020 study that found no evidence of its efficacy, leading the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw its approval for prevention of preterm birth. ”These findings are important especially in light of the controversy surrounding 17-OHP,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at UCLA, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “It is also sometimes difficult for patients to commit to weekly 17-OHPC injections, which requires time and many doctors visits, as compared to vaginal progesterone, which patients can administer at home.” Since this study does not have a placebo group, “it does not address the question of the overall efficacy of either medication compared to a control,” Dr. Mei said. ”It is also a somewhat small patient population so the results may change with a larger population. The authors conclude it is worth readdressing the use of vaginal progesterone for these patients.”

Herman L. Hedriana, MD, professor and director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and the maternal-fetal medicine fellowship program at the University of California, Davis, also pointed out notable differences between the two compounds.

“One has to remember that the formulation and mechanism of action are very different between 17-OHPC and the vaginal application of micronized progesterone. We do not have enough data to say one is superior versus the other,” said Dr. Hedriana, who was not involved in the research. “With 17-OHPC, the mechanism of action appears to be influenced by how the drug is metabolized based on race and ethnicity makeup, and may be influence by epigenetics,” while the mechanism for vaginal progesterone is probably local “given it is applied directly next to the cervix; hence, the results are it is effective in short cervices.” But those differing mechanisms don’t change the clinical significance of the findings. “One can use vaginal progesterone or 17-OHPC based on patient preference and availability,” Dr. Hedriana said.

The researchers of both studies reported no personal financial or industry disclosures, though Dr. Boelig disclosed that she had taken 17-OHPC and had cerclages during both her pregnancies, which resulted in healthy children today. The PREEMPT trial was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The head-to-head trial was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Development, the March of Dimes, the EW Thrasher Foundation, the PhRMA Foundation, and Covis Pharma, who manufactures the 17-OHPC drug Makena.

This story was updated on 2/8/2022.

The potential effectiveness of using vaginal progesterone to prevent preterm birth in two different populations was the focus of a pair of studies with mixed results at the annual meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine on Feb. 3. One study found no benefit from vaginal progesterone in those with first trimester bleeding, while the other, in a head-to-head comparison with 17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC), found vaginal progesterone performs similarly to 17-OHPC in singleton pregnancies with a history of preterm birth.

While the first study does not suggest any changes in clinical practice, the second one suggests that vaginal progesterone is an alternative to 17-OHPC, as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists currently recommends. SMFM currently only includes 17-OHPC in its guidelines.

“In otherwise low-risk pregnancies with first trimester bleeding, progesterone should not be prescribed for the prevention of miscarriage or prematurity,” Haim A. Abenhaim, MD, MPH, of the Jewish General Hospital at McGill University, Montreal, told attendees in his presentation.

”Publishing the negative result is so important because this helps the overall body of literature reduce the amount of publication bias that exists in the literature,” Michael Richley, MD, an ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Richley was not involved in the research but attended the presentation.
 

Vaginal progesterone for first trimester bleeding

Most preterm birth occurs in pregnancies with no identifiable risk factors, but first-trimester bleeding may indicate subchorionic hemorrhage from placental detachment, which can increase the risk of preterm birth. Other risk factors where progesterone has previously shown effectiveness in reducing preterm birth risk include short cervix and a history of prior preterm birth.

The first study (PREEMPT) was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted at six Canadian hospitals with 533 women. The participants all experienced bleeding within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy and a documented subchorionic hemorrhage. The trial excluded those who already required progesterone, had contraindications to progesterone or had an alternate cause of bleeding.

The intervention group included 264 women randomly assigned to use 200 mg of micronized progesterone administered with a vaginal suppository at bedtime, while the placebo group included 269 women who used a vaginal suppository with no medication, both administered until 34 weeks of pregnancy. The groups were not significantly different in age, race, or former pregnancies, live births, and miscarriages. They were also similar in clinical characteristics of bleeding and subchorionic hemorrhage.

The proportion of term births was similar between the progesterone (74.6%) and placebo (70.6%) groups (P =.3), as was the proportion of preterm births (10.2% progesterone vs. 12.3% placebo, P =.46). There were also no significant differences in the secondary outcomes of cramping, hospital admission, bed rest, or preventive measures, including pessary, cerclage, antibiotics, magnesium, and nifedipine. Newborns across both groups were statistically similar in average birth weight and distribution of birth weights and in incidence of neonatal ICU admission or respiratory distress syndrome. Adverse events were similar across both groups.

”The results are not surprising as several studies in the past have shown similar lack of efficacy,” Dr. said. “The pathophysiology of subchorionic hematoma is different from the multifactorial etiologies of spontaneous preterm birth, and given our lack of clear understanding of the actions of progesterone, the lack of efficacy in this subgroup with subchorionic hematoma is not surprising.”

Dr. Richley did note that having a low-risk population to start with may have affected the findings, which might be different in a high-risk population.

“I don’t believe this will change anything within clinical practice. At this time, progesterone is not used in any form in the setting of first trimester threatened abortion by maternal-fetal medicine specialists,” Dr. Richley said. “There may be other subgroups of clinicians who do prescribe progesterone in this setting, and these data should further encourage them to move away from this practice.”

Dr. Abenhaim noted a couple unexpected issues that occurred during the course of the study, such as underreporting of subchorionic hemorrhage with radiologic confirmation that resulted in a smaller population and a change in protocol to include patients with no identifiable secondary source of bleeding. The pandemic also halted enrollment, and the investigators halted the trial when recruitment could have continued since interim analysis showed no likely benefit.

Though first trimester bleeding is associated with a 25%-30% increased risk of miscarriage or preterm birth, the findings showed that progesterone did not prevent miscarriage or prematurity, or increase the live birth rate, in low-risk patients with first trimester bleeding.
 

Vaginal progesterone vs. 17-OHPC

Although a 2017 meta-analysis had found vaginal progesterone to be superior to 17-OHPC in preventing preterm birth, few studies were available, and they had wide confidence intervals. This open-label randomized controlled trial took place at five U.S. sites and included participants who had a singleton pregnancy less than 24 weeks along and a history of singleton preterm birth between 16 and 37 weeks. The trials excluded those with placenta previa or accreta, preterm labor, preterm premature rupture of the membranes, clinical chorioamnionitis, or a major fetal anomaly or chromosomal disorder.

Among 205 women initially randomized, 94 in each group completed the trial, either inserting 200 mg of micronized progesterone daily with a vaginal suppository or receiving 250 mg of weekly intramuscular injections of 17-OHPC from 16 to 36 weeks’ gestation. The only significant difference between the groups in demographics or clinical features was that the vaginal progesterone group had a higher proportion of multiple past preterm births (33%) compared with the 17-OHPC group (17%). Cervical length and use of cerclage were also similar between the groups.

Though 30.9% of the vaginal progesterone group delivered preterm before 37 weeks, compared with 38.3% in the 17-OHPC group, the difference was not significant (P =.28). There was a borderline statistical difference between gestational age at delivery: 37.4 weeks in the vaginal progesterone group versus 36.3 weeks in the 17-OHPC group (P =.047). Neonatal outcomes were clinically similar between the two groups. Therapy initiation did slightly differ between the groups, with an average start 1 gestational week earlier in the vaginal progesterone group (16.9 vs. 17.8, P =.001) and a higher proportion of patients in the 17-OHPC group initiating therapy after 20 weeks (16.5% vs. 2.2%, P =.001). Adherence was otherwise similar between the groups, and the groups reported similar rates and types of side effects.

The trial did not meet the primary endpoint of vaginal progesterone reducing risk of recurrent preterm birth by 50%, compared with 17-OHPC, but it may increase latency to delivery, Rupsa C. Boelig, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told attendees. Though this was the largest trial to compare vaginal progesterone with 17-OHPC for preventing preterm birth, it was underpowered to detect a difference in efficacy, to conduct subgroup analyses, and to assess secondary outcomes, Dr. Boelig noted. “Baseline difference in preterm birth risk may affect apparent relative efficacy of vaginal progesterone.”

Nevertheless, the “totality of evidence appears to be greater for vaginal progesterone,” Dr. Boelig said, making vaginal progesterone an acceptable alternative to 17-OHPC. ACOG recommendations currently include offering either, but SMFM recommendations only mention 17-OHPC.

It’s worth noting, however, that the future of 17-OHPC, a synthetic compound, compared with naturally occurring micronized progesterone, continues to be uncertain following a 2020 study that found no evidence of its efficacy, leading the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw its approval for prevention of preterm birth. ”These findings are important especially in light of the controversy surrounding 17-OHP,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at UCLA, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “It is also sometimes difficult for patients to commit to weekly 17-OHPC injections, which requires time and many doctors visits, as compared to vaginal progesterone, which patients can administer at home.” Since this study does not have a placebo group, “it does not address the question of the overall efficacy of either medication compared to a control,” Dr. Mei said. ”It is also a somewhat small patient population so the results may change with a larger population. The authors conclude it is worth readdressing the use of vaginal progesterone for these patients.”

Herman L. Hedriana, MD, professor and director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and the maternal-fetal medicine fellowship program at the University of California, Davis, also pointed out notable differences between the two compounds.

“One has to remember that the formulation and mechanism of action are very different between 17-OHPC and the vaginal application of micronized progesterone. We do not have enough data to say one is superior versus the other,” said Dr. Hedriana, who was not involved in the research. “With 17-OHPC, the mechanism of action appears to be influenced by how the drug is metabolized based on race and ethnicity makeup, and may be influence by epigenetics,” while the mechanism for vaginal progesterone is probably local “given it is applied directly next to the cervix; hence, the results are it is effective in short cervices.” But those differing mechanisms don’t change the clinical significance of the findings. “One can use vaginal progesterone or 17-OHPC based on patient preference and availability,” Dr. Hedriana said.

The researchers of both studies reported no personal financial or industry disclosures, though Dr. Boelig disclosed that she had taken 17-OHPC and had cerclages during both her pregnancies, which resulted in healthy children today. The PREEMPT trial was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The head-to-head trial was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Development, the March of Dimes, the EW Thrasher Foundation, the PhRMA Foundation, and Covis Pharma, who manufactures the 17-OHPC drug Makena.

This story was updated on 2/8/2022.

Low-dose aspirin may increase risk of postpartum bleeding if patients don’t discontinue its use at least 7 days before delivery, but it’s otherwise unclear whether its use increases bleeding risk, according to research presented Feb. 5 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“These findings were a little surprising to me because we have generally been taught that aspirin is safe to continue up until delivery with minimal risk,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “Theoretically it makes sense that it may increase bleeding risk, but multiple studies in the past analyzing its use with gynecological surgery show minimal risk, which was conferred to the obstetrical population as well.”

She noted, however, that patients prescribed low-dose aspirin already have risk factors that may increase their risk of postpartum bleeding, and the study’s finding of possible increased risk was not statistically significant after accounting for those confounders. “I wouldn’t change my practice management over it, but it does raise awareness that all interventions likely come with some risk,” Dr. Mei said.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are responsible for 6.6% of U.S. pregnancy-related deaths. The SMFM currently recommends low-dose aspirin starting at 12 weeks’ gestation in patients at high risk for preeclampsia, which includes people with multifetal gestation, chronic hypertension, pregestational diabetes, renal disease, autoimmune disease, or a history of preeclampsia. However, previous research has shown mixed results on the safety of low-dose aspirin in terms of bleeding risk, Kelsey White, MD, a second-year maternal-fetal medicine fellow of the Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told attendees.

This retrospective study compared a bleeding composite endpoint among those who did and did not take low-dose aspirin between January 2018 and April 2021. The composite included an estimated blood loss of greater than 1,000 mL, postpartum hemorrhage based on ICD-9/10 code diagnosis, and red blood cell transfusion. The researchers also compared bleeding risk within the aspirin group based on discontinuation at greater or less than 7 days before delivery.

Among 16,980 patients, 11.3% were prescribed low-dose aspirin. The patients prescribed low-dose aspirin significantly differed from those not prescribed it in all demographic and clinical characteristics except placenta accreta spectrum. The average age of the aspirin group was 39 years, compared with 24 years in the nonaspirin group (P < .01). More of the aspirin group patients were Hispanic and Black, and 52.3% of patients taking aspirin had a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², compared with 22.9% of the nonaspirin group. Rates of diabetes, lupus, fibroids, nonaspirin anticoagulation use, cesarean delivery, and preterm delivery were all greater in the aspirin group.

In addition, 43.9% of the patients in the aspirin group had a hypertensive disorder, including 20.2% with preeclampsia, compared with 17.1% with hypertensive disorders, including 6.2% with preeclampsia, in the group not taking aspirin (P < .0001). “This shows that a high-risk population was prescribed aspirin, which correlates to the recommended prescription guidelines,” Dr. White said.

The postpartum bleeding composite outcome occurred in 14.7% of patients in the low-dose aspirin group, compared with 9.2% of patients in the nonaspirin group, for an unadjusted 1.7 times greater risk of bleeding (95% confidence interval, 1.49-1.96). After adjustment for confounders, the risk declined and was no longer statistically significant (aOR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98-1.34).

Meanwhile, 15% of those who discontinued aspirin within 7 days of delivery had postpartum bleeding, compared with 9% of those who discontinued aspirin at 7 or more days before delivery (P = .03).

Therefore, while the study found only a possible, nonsignificant association between low-dose aspirin and postpartum bleeding, risk of bleeding was significantly greater among those who discontinued aspirin only in the last week before delivery.

”Our study is timely and supports a recent Swedish study [that] found an increased risk of intrapartum bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage, and postpartum hematoma,” Dr. White said. She also noted that the United States Preventive Services Task Force changed their recommendation in 2021 for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis for cardiovascular disease.

“They now recommend against the use of low-dose aspirin for prevention in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. White said. “The change in recommendations came after recent randomized control trials showed that low-dose aspirin had very little benefit and may increase the risk of bleeding.”

However, Dr. White added that they “do not believe this study should be used to make any clinical decisions.” While the study had a large sample size, it was limited by its retrospective reliance on EMR data, including the EMR medication list, and the researchers couldn’t assess patient compliance or patient use of over-the-counter aspirin not recorded in the EMR.

Deirdre Lyell, MD, a professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed that the findings should not impact clinical practice given its limitations.

“The investigators could not entirely identify who stopped low-dose aspirin and when. When they estimated timing of stoppage of low-dose aspirin, their data suggested a small benefit among those who discontinued it at least 7 days before delivery, though this should be interpreted with caution, given the potential inaccuracy in these data,” Dr. Lyell, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “Their study did not examine factors that should be used to confirm if there are real differences in blood loss, such as changes in blood counts before and after delivery, or more use of medications that we use to stop heavy bleeding.”

In fact, Dr. Lyell noted, other research at the SMFM meeting found ”that low-dose aspirin is not used frequently enough in patients who might benefit, such as those at high risk for preeclampsia,” she said. ”Low-dose aspirin among those at increased risk has been shown to reduce rates of preeclampsia, reducing the likelihood of risky situations for moms and babies.”

The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Lyell has consulted for Bloomlife, a uterine contraction and fetal monitor. Dr. White and Dr. Mei had no disclosures.
 

Low-dose aspirin may increase risk of postpartum bleeding if patients don’t discontinue its use at least 7 days before delivery, but it’s otherwise unclear whether its use increases bleeding risk, according to research presented Feb. 5 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“These findings were a little surprising to me because we have generally been taught that aspirin is safe to continue up until delivery with minimal risk,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “Theoretically it makes sense that it may increase bleeding risk, but multiple studies in the past analyzing its use with gynecological surgery show minimal risk, which was conferred to the obstetrical population as well.”

She noted, however, that patients prescribed low-dose aspirin already have risk factors that may increase their risk of postpartum bleeding, and the study’s finding of possible increased risk was not statistically significant after accounting for those confounders. “I wouldn’t change my practice management over it, but it does raise awareness that all interventions likely come with some risk,” Dr. Mei said.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are responsible for 6.6% of U.S. pregnancy-related deaths. The SMFM currently recommends low-dose aspirin starting at 12 weeks’ gestation in patients at high risk for preeclampsia, which includes people with multifetal gestation, chronic hypertension, pregestational diabetes, renal disease, autoimmune disease, or a history of preeclampsia. However, previous research has shown mixed results on the safety of low-dose aspirin in terms of bleeding risk, Kelsey White, MD, a second-year maternal-fetal medicine fellow of the Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told attendees.

This retrospective study compared a bleeding composite endpoint among those who did and did not take low-dose aspirin between January 2018 and April 2021. The composite included an estimated blood loss of greater than 1,000 mL, postpartum hemorrhage based on ICD-9/10 code diagnosis, and red blood cell transfusion. The researchers also compared bleeding risk within the aspirin group based on discontinuation at greater or less than 7 days before delivery.

Among 16,980 patients, 11.3% were prescribed low-dose aspirin. The patients prescribed low-dose aspirin significantly differed from those not prescribed it in all demographic and clinical characteristics except placenta accreta spectrum. The average age of the aspirin group was 39 years, compared with 24 years in the nonaspirin group (P < .01). More of the aspirin group patients were Hispanic and Black, and 52.3% of patients taking aspirin had a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², compared with 22.9% of the nonaspirin group. Rates of diabetes, lupus, fibroids, nonaspirin anticoagulation use, cesarean delivery, and preterm delivery were all greater in the aspirin group.

In addition, 43.9% of the patients in the aspirin group had a hypertensive disorder, including 20.2% with preeclampsia, compared with 17.1% with hypertensive disorders, including 6.2% with preeclampsia, in the group not taking aspirin (P < .0001). “This shows that a high-risk population was prescribed aspirin, which correlates to the recommended prescription guidelines,” Dr. White said.

The postpartum bleeding composite outcome occurred in 14.7% of patients in the low-dose aspirin group, compared with 9.2% of patients in the nonaspirin group, for an unadjusted 1.7 times greater risk of bleeding (95% confidence interval, 1.49-1.96). After adjustment for confounders, the risk declined and was no longer statistically significant (aOR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98-1.34).

Meanwhile, 15% of those who discontinued aspirin within 7 days of delivery had postpartum bleeding, compared with 9% of those who discontinued aspirin at 7 or more days before delivery (P = .03).

Therefore, while the study found only a possible, nonsignificant association between low-dose aspirin and postpartum bleeding, risk of bleeding was significantly greater among those who discontinued aspirin only in the last week before delivery.

”Our study is timely and supports a recent Swedish study [that] found an increased risk of intrapartum bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage, and postpartum hematoma,” Dr. White said. She also noted that the United States Preventive Services Task Force changed their recommendation in 2021 for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis for cardiovascular disease.

“They now recommend against the use of low-dose aspirin for prevention in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. White said. “The change in recommendations came after recent randomized control trials showed that low-dose aspirin had very little benefit and may increase the risk of bleeding.”

However, Dr. White added that they “do not believe this study should be used to make any clinical decisions.” While the study had a large sample size, it was limited by its retrospective reliance on EMR data, including the EMR medication list, and the researchers couldn’t assess patient compliance or patient use of over-the-counter aspirin not recorded in the EMR.

Deirdre Lyell, MD, a professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed that the findings should not impact clinical practice given its limitations.

“The investigators could not entirely identify who stopped low-dose aspirin and when. When they estimated timing of stoppage of low-dose aspirin, their data suggested a small benefit among those who discontinued it at least 7 days before delivery, though this should be interpreted with caution, given the potential inaccuracy in these data,” Dr. Lyell, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “Their study did not examine factors that should be used to confirm if there are real differences in blood loss, such as changes in blood counts before and after delivery, or more use of medications that we use to stop heavy bleeding.”

In fact, Dr. Lyell noted, other research at the SMFM meeting found ”that low-dose aspirin is not used frequently enough in patients who might benefit, such as those at high risk for preeclampsia,” she said. ”Low-dose aspirin among those at increased risk has been shown to reduce rates of preeclampsia, reducing the likelihood of risky situations for moms and babies.”

The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Lyell has consulted for Bloomlife, a uterine contraction and fetal monitor. Dr. White and Dr. Mei had no disclosures.
 

Low-dose aspirin may increase risk of postpartum bleeding if patients don’t discontinue its use at least 7 days before delivery, but it’s otherwise unclear whether its use increases bleeding risk, according to research presented Feb. 5 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“These findings were a little surprising to me because we have generally been taught that aspirin is safe to continue up until delivery with minimal risk,” Jenny Mei, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview after attending the presentation. “Theoretically it makes sense that it may increase bleeding risk, but multiple studies in the past analyzing its use with gynecological surgery show minimal risk, which was conferred to the obstetrical population as well.”

She noted, however, that patients prescribed low-dose aspirin already have risk factors that may increase their risk of postpartum bleeding, and the study’s finding of possible increased risk was not statistically significant after accounting for those confounders. “I wouldn’t change my practice management over it, but it does raise awareness that all interventions likely come with some risk,” Dr. Mei said.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are responsible for 6.6% of U.S. pregnancy-related deaths. The SMFM currently recommends low-dose aspirin starting at 12 weeks’ gestation in patients at high risk for preeclampsia, which includes people with multifetal gestation, chronic hypertension, pregestational diabetes, renal disease, autoimmune disease, or a history of preeclampsia. However, previous research has shown mixed results on the safety of low-dose aspirin in terms of bleeding risk, Kelsey White, MD, a second-year maternal-fetal medicine fellow of the Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told attendees.

This retrospective study compared a bleeding composite endpoint among those who did and did not take low-dose aspirin between January 2018 and April 2021. The composite included an estimated blood loss of greater than 1,000 mL, postpartum hemorrhage based on ICD-9/10 code diagnosis, and red blood cell transfusion. The researchers also compared bleeding risk within the aspirin group based on discontinuation at greater or less than 7 days before delivery.

Among 16,980 patients, 11.3% were prescribed low-dose aspirin. The patients prescribed low-dose aspirin significantly differed from those not prescribed it in all demographic and clinical characteristics except placenta accreta spectrum. The average age of the aspirin group was 39 years, compared with 24 years in the nonaspirin group (P < .01). More of the aspirin group patients were Hispanic and Black, and 52.3% of patients taking aspirin had a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², compared with 22.9% of the nonaspirin group. Rates of diabetes, lupus, fibroids, nonaspirin anticoagulation use, cesarean delivery, and preterm delivery were all greater in the aspirin group.

In addition, 43.9% of the patients in the aspirin group had a hypertensive disorder, including 20.2% with preeclampsia, compared with 17.1% with hypertensive disorders, including 6.2% with preeclampsia, in the group not taking aspirin (P < .0001). “This shows that a high-risk population was prescribed aspirin, which correlates to the recommended prescription guidelines,” Dr. White said.

The postpartum bleeding composite outcome occurred in 14.7% of patients in the low-dose aspirin group, compared with 9.2% of patients in the nonaspirin group, for an unadjusted 1.7 times greater risk of bleeding (95% confidence interval, 1.49-1.96). After adjustment for confounders, the risk declined and was no longer statistically significant (aOR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98-1.34).

Meanwhile, 15% of those who discontinued aspirin within 7 days of delivery had postpartum bleeding, compared with 9% of those who discontinued aspirin at 7 or more days before delivery (P = .03).

Therefore, while the study found only a possible, nonsignificant association between low-dose aspirin and postpartum bleeding, risk of bleeding was significantly greater among those who discontinued aspirin only in the last week before delivery.

”Our study is timely and supports a recent Swedish study [that] found an increased risk of intrapartum bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage, and postpartum hematoma,” Dr. White said. She also noted that the United States Preventive Services Task Force changed their recommendation in 2021 for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis for cardiovascular disease.

“They now recommend against the use of low-dose aspirin for prevention in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. White said. “The change in recommendations came after recent randomized control trials showed that low-dose aspirin had very little benefit and may increase the risk of bleeding.”

However, Dr. White added that they “do not believe this study should be used to make any clinical decisions.” While the study had a large sample size, it was limited by its retrospective reliance on EMR data, including the EMR medication list, and the researchers couldn’t assess patient compliance or patient use of over-the-counter aspirin not recorded in the EMR.

Deirdre Lyell, MD, a professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed that the findings should not impact clinical practice given its limitations.

“The investigators could not entirely identify who stopped low-dose aspirin and when. When they estimated timing of stoppage of low-dose aspirin, their data suggested a small benefit among those who discontinued it at least 7 days before delivery, though this should be interpreted with caution, given the potential inaccuracy in these data,” Dr. Lyell, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “Their study did not examine factors that should be used to confirm if there are real differences in blood loss, such as changes in blood counts before and after delivery, or more use of medications that we use to stop heavy bleeding.”

In fact, Dr. Lyell noted, other research at the SMFM meeting found ”that low-dose aspirin is not used frequently enough in patients who might benefit, such as those at high risk for preeclampsia,” she said. ”Low-dose aspirin among those at increased risk has been shown to reduce rates of preeclampsia, reducing the likelihood of risky situations for moms and babies.”

The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Lyell has consulted for Bloomlife, a uterine contraction and fetal monitor. Dr. White and Dr. Mei had no disclosures.
 

Vaginal cleansing showed no reduction in morbidity when performed before unscheduled cesarean deliveries, researchers reported at the 2022 Pregnancy Meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Several studies have evaluated vaginal cleansing prior to cesarean delivery, with mixed results. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends clinicians consider cleansing prior to unscheduled cesareans, but that advice appears not to be widely heeded.

The new findings, from what the researchers called the single largest study of vaginal cleansing prior to cesarean delivery in the United States, showed no difference in post-cesarean infections when the vagina was cleansed with povidone-iodine prior to unscheduled cesarean delivery.

“These findings do not support routine vaginal cleansing prior to unscheduled cesarean deliveries,” lead author Lorene Atkins Temming, MD, medical director of labor and delivery at Atrium Health Wake Forest School of Medicine, Charlotte, North Carolina, told this news organization. The research was conducted at and sponsored by Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, where Dr. Temming did her fellowship.

Dr. Temming’s group compared vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine in addition to routine abdominal cleansing to abdominal cleansing alone. Among the primary outcomes of the study was the effect of cleansing on post-cesarean infectious morbidity.

“There is a higher risk of infectious complications after cesarean delivery than other gynecologic surgeries,” Dr. Temming told this news organization. “While the reason for this isn’t entirely clear, it is thought to be because cesareans are often performed after a patient’s cervix is dilated. This dilation can allow normal bacteria that live in the vagina to ascend into the uterus and can increase the risk of infections.”

Patients undergoing cesarean delivery after labor were randomly assigned to undergo preoperative abdominal cleansing only (n = 304) or preoperative abdominal cleansing plus vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine (n = 304). Women were included in the analysis if they underwent cesareans after regular contractions and any cervical dilation, if their membranes ruptured, or if they had the procedure performed when they were more than 4 cm dilated.

The primary outcome was composite infectious morbidity, a catchall that included surgical-site infection, maternal fever, endometritis, and wound complications within 30 days after cesarean delivery. The secondary outcomes were hospital readmission, visits to the emergency department, and treatment for neonatal sepsis.

The researchers observed no significant difference in the primary composite outcome between the two groups (11.7% vs. 11.7%, P = .98; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.5). “Vaginal cleansing appears to be unnecessary when preoperative antibiotics and skin antisepsis are performed,” Dr. Temming said.

Jennifer L. Lew, MD, an ob/gyn at Northwestern Medicine Kishwaukee Hospital in Dekalb, Illinois, said current practice regarding preparation for unscheduled cesarean surgery includes chlorhexidine on the abdomen and povidone-iodine for introducing a Foley catheter into the urethra.

“Many patients may already have a catheter in place due to labor and epidural, so they would not need” vaginal prep, Dr. Lew said. “Currently, the standard does not require doing a vaginal prep for any cesarean sections, those in labor or not.”

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vaginal cleansing showed no reduction in morbidity when performed before unscheduled cesarean deliveries, researchers reported at the 2022 Pregnancy Meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Several studies have evaluated vaginal cleansing prior to cesarean delivery, with mixed results. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends clinicians consider cleansing prior to unscheduled cesareans, but that advice appears not to be widely heeded.

The new findings, from what the researchers called the single largest study of vaginal cleansing prior to cesarean delivery in the United States, showed no difference in post-cesarean infections when the vagina was cleansed with povidone-iodine prior to unscheduled cesarean delivery.

“These findings do not support routine vaginal cleansing prior to unscheduled cesarean deliveries,” lead author Lorene Atkins Temming, MD, medical director of labor and delivery at Atrium Health Wake Forest School of Medicine, Charlotte, North Carolina, told this news organization. The research was conducted at and sponsored by Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, where Dr. Temming did her fellowship.

Dr. Temming’s group compared vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine in addition to routine abdominal cleansing to abdominal cleansing alone. Among the primary outcomes of the study was the effect of cleansing on post-cesarean infectious morbidity.

“There is a higher risk of infectious complications after cesarean delivery than other gynecologic surgeries,” Dr. Temming told this news organization. “While the reason for this isn’t entirely clear, it is thought to be because cesareans are often performed after a patient’s cervix is dilated. This dilation can allow normal bacteria that live in the vagina to ascend into the uterus and can increase the risk of infections.”

Patients undergoing cesarean delivery after labor were randomly assigned to undergo preoperative abdominal cleansing only (n = 304) or preoperative abdominal cleansing plus vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine (n = 304). Women were included in the analysis if they underwent cesareans after regular contractions and any cervical dilation, if their membranes ruptured, or if they had the procedure performed when they were more than 4 cm dilated.

The primary outcome was composite infectious morbidity, a catchall that included surgical-site infection, maternal fever, endometritis, and wound complications within 30 days after cesarean delivery. The secondary outcomes were hospital readmission, visits to the emergency department, and treatment for neonatal sepsis.

The researchers observed no significant difference in the primary composite outcome between the two groups (11.7% vs. 11.7%, P = .98; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.5). “Vaginal cleansing appears to be unnecessary when preoperative antibiotics and skin antisepsis are performed,” Dr. Temming said.

Jennifer L. Lew, MD, an ob/gyn at Northwestern Medicine Kishwaukee Hospital in Dekalb, Illinois, said current practice regarding preparation for unscheduled cesarean surgery includes chlorhexidine on the abdomen and povidone-iodine for introducing a Foley catheter into the urethra.

“Many patients may already have a catheter in place due to labor and epidural, so they would not need” vaginal prep, Dr. Lew said. “Currently, the standard does not require doing a vaginal prep for any cesarean sections, those in labor or not.”

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vaginal cleansing showed no reduction in morbidity when performed before unscheduled cesarean deliveries, researchers reported at the 2022 Pregnancy Meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Several studies have evaluated vaginal cleansing prior to cesarean delivery, with mixed results. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends clinicians consider cleansing prior to unscheduled cesareans, but that advice appears not to be widely heeded.

The new findings, from what the researchers called the single largest study of vaginal cleansing prior to cesarean delivery in the United States, showed no difference in post-cesarean infections when the vagina was cleansed with povidone-iodine prior to unscheduled cesarean delivery.

“These findings do not support routine vaginal cleansing prior to unscheduled cesarean deliveries,” lead author Lorene Atkins Temming, MD, medical director of labor and delivery at Atrium Health Wake Forest School of Medicine, Charlotte, North Carolina, told this news organization. The research was conducted at and sponsored by Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, where Dr. Temming did her fellowship.

Dr. Temming’s group compared vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine in addition to routine abdominal cleansing to abdominal cleansing alone. Among the primary outcomes of the study was the effect of cleansing on post-cesarean infectious morbidity.

“There is a higher risk of infectious complications after cesarean delivery than other gynecologic surgeries,” Dr. Temming told this news organization. “While the reason for this isn’t entirely clear, it is thought to be because cesareans are often performed after a patient’s cervix is dilated. This dilation can allow normal bacteria that live in the vagina to ascend into the uterus and can increase the risk of infections.”

Patients undergoing cesarean delivery after labor were randomly assigned to undergo preoperative abdominal cleansing only (n = 304) or preoperative abdominal cleansing plus vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine (n = 304). Women were included in the analysis if they underwent cesareans after regular contractions and any cervical dilation, if their membranes ruptured, or if they had the procedure performed when they were more than 4 cm dilated.

The primary outcome was composite infectious morbidity, a catchall that included surgical-site infection, maternal fever, endometritis, and wound complications within 30 days after cesarean delivery. The secondary outcomes were hospital readmission, visits to the emergency department, and treatment for neonatal sepsis.

The researchers observed no significant difference in the primary composite outcome between the two groups (11.7% vs. 11.7%, P = .98; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.5). “Vaginal cleansing appears to be unnecessary when preoperative antibiotics and skin antisepsis are performed,” Dr. Temming said.

Jennifer L. Lew, MD, an ob/gyn at Northwestern Medicine Kishwaukee Hospital in Dekalb, Illinois, said current practice regarding preparation for unscheduled cesarean surgery includes chlorhexidine on the abdomen and povidone-iodine for introducing a Foley catheter into the urethra.

“Many patients may already have a catheter in place due to labor and epidural, so they would not need” vaginal prep, Dr. Lew said. “Currently, the standard does not require doing a vaginal prep for any cesarean sections, those in labor or not.”

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of marijuana during pregnancy was associated with symptoms of nausea and vomiting and with use of prescribed antiemetics, according to a study presented Feb. 3 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. It’s unclear, however, whether the association suggests that pregnant individuals are using marijuana in an attempt to treat their symptoms or whether the marijuana use is contributing to nausea and vomiting – or neither, Torri D. Metz, MD, of the University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, told attendees.

“Cannabis use has been increasing among pregnant individuals,” Dr. Metz said. “Reported reasons for use range from habit to perceived benefit for treatment of medical conditions, including nausea and vomiting.” She noted a previous study that found that dispensary employees in Colorado recommended cannabis to pregnant callers for treating of nausea despite no clinical evidence of it being an effective treatment.

”Anecdotally, I can say that many patients have told me that marijuana is the only thing that makes them feel better in the first trimester, but that could also be closely tied to marijuana alleviating their other symptoms, such as anxiety or sleep disturbances,” Ilina Pluym, MD, of the department of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. ”In the brain, marijuana acts to alleviate nausea and vomiting, and it has been used successfully to treat nausea [caused by] chemotherapy,” said Dr. Pluym, who attended the abstract presentation but was not involved in the research. “But in the gut, with long-term marijuana use, it can have the opposite effect, which is what is seen in cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome.”

Past research that has identified a link between cannabis use and nausea in pregnancy has typically relied on administrative data or self-reporting that are subject to recall and social desirability bias instead of a biomarker to assess cannabis use. This study therefore assessed marijuana use based on the presence of THC-COOH in urine samples and added the element of investigating antiemetic use in the population.

The study enrolled 10,038 nulliparous pregnant patients from eight U.S. centers from 2010 to 2013 who were an average 11 weeks pregnant. All participants completed the Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) tool at their first study visit and consented to testing of their previously frozen urine samples. The PUQE tool asks participants how often they have experienced nausea, vomiting, or retching or dry heaves within the previous 12 hours. A score of 1-6 is mild, a score of 7-12 is moderate, and a score of 13 or higher is severe.

Overall, 15.8% of participants reported moderate to severe nausea and 38.2% reported mild nausea. A total of 5.8% of participants tested positive for marijuana use based on THC levels in urine. Those with incrementally higher levels of THC, at least 500 ng/mg of creatinine, were 1.6 times more likely to report moderate to severe nausea after accounting for maternal age, body mass index, antiemetic drug use, and gestational age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; P < .001). An association did not exist, however, with any level of nausea overall. Those with higher creatinine levels were also 1.9 times more likely to report vomiting and 1.6 times more likely to report dry heaves or retching (P < .001).

About 1 in 10 participants (9.6%) overall had used a prescription antiemetic drug. Antiemetics were more common among those who had used marijuana: 18% of those with detectable THC had used antiemetics, compared with 12% of those without evidence of cannabis use (P < .001). However, most of those who used marijuana (83%) took only one antiemetic.

Among the study’s limitations were its lack of data on the reasons for cannabis use and the fact that it took place before widespread cannabidiol products became available, which meant most participants were using marijuana by smoking it.

Dr. Pluym also pointed out that the overall rate of marijuana use during pregnancy is likely higher today than it was in 2010-2013, before many states legalized its use. “But legalization shouldn’t equal normalization in pregnancy,” she added.

In addition, while the PUQE score assesses symptoms within the previous 12 hours, THC can remain in urine samples anywhere from several days to several weeks after marijuana is used.

”We’re unable to establish cause and effect,” Dr. Metz said, “but what we can conclude is that marijuana use was associated with early pregnancy nausea and vomiting.”

The findings emphasize the need for physicians to ask patients about their use of marijuana and seek to find out why they’re using it, Dr. Metz said. If it’s to treat nausea and vomiting of pregnancy, ob.gyns. should ensure patients are aware of the potential adverse effects of marijuana use in pregnancy and mention safe, effective alternatives. Research from the National Academy of Sciences has shown consistent evidence of decreased fetal growth with marijuana use in pregnancy, but there hasn’t been enough evidence to assess potential long-term neurological effects.

The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Metz and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

Use of marijuana during pregnancy was associated with symptoms of nausea and vomiting and with use of prescribed antiemetics, according to a study presented Feb. 3 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. It’s unclear, however, whether the association suggests that pregnant individuals are using marijuana in an attempt to treat their symptoms or whether the marijuana use is contributing to nausea and vomiting – or neither, Torri D. Metz, MD, of the University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, told attendees.

“Cannabis use has been increasing among pregnant individuals,” Dr. Metz said. “Reported reasons for use range from habit to perceived benefit for treatment of medical conditions, including nausea and vomiting.” She noted a previous study that found that dispensary employees in Colorado recommended cannabis to pregnant callers for treating of nausea despite no clinical evidence of it being an effective treatment.

”Anecdotally, I can say that many patients have told me that marijuana is the only thing that makes them feel better in the first trimester, but that could also be closely tied to marijuana alleviating their other symptoms, such as anxiety or sleep disturbances,” Ilina Pluym, MD, of the department of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. ”In the brain, marijuana acts to alleviate nausea and vomiting, and it has been used successfully to treat nausea [caused by] chemotherapy,” said Dr. Pluym, who attended the abstract presentation but was not involved in the research. “But in the gut, with long-term marijuana use, it can have the opposite effect, which is what is seen in cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome.”

Past research that has identified a link between cannabis use and nausea in pregnancy has typically relied on administrative data or self-reporting that are subject to recall and social desirability bias instead of a biomarker to assess cannabis use. This study therefore assessed marijuana use based on the presence of THC-COOH in urine samples and added the element of investigating antiemetic use in the population.

The study enrolled 10,038 nulliparous pregnant patients from eight U.S. centers from 2010 to 2013 who were an average 11 weeks pregnant. All participants completed the Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) tool at their first study visit and consented to testing of their previously frozen urine samples. The PUQE tool asks participants how often they have experienced nausea, vomiting, or retching or dry heaves within the previous 12 hours. A score of 1-6 is mild, a score of 7-12 is moderate, and a score of 13 or higher is severe.

Overall, 15.8% of participants reported moderate to severe nausea and 38.2% reported mild nausea. A total of 5.8% of participants tested positive for marijuana use based on THC levels in urine. Those with incrementally higher levels of THC, at least 500 ng/mg of creatinine, were 1.6 times more likely to report moderate to severe nausea after accounting for maternal age, body mass index, antiemetic drug use, and gestational age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; P < .001). An association did not exist, however, with any level of nausea overall. Those with higher creatinine levels were also 1.9 times more likely to report vomiting and 1.6 times more likely to report dry heaves or retching (P < .001).

About 1 in 10 participants (9.6%) overall had used a prescription antiemetic drug. Antiemetics were more common among those who had used marijuana: 18% of those with detectable THC had used antiemetics, compared with 12% of those without evidence of cannabis use (P < .001). However, most of those who used marijuana (83%) took only one antiemetic.

Among the study’s limitations were its lack of data on the reasons for cannabis use and the fact that it took place before widespread cannabidiol products became available, which meant most participants were using marijuana by smoking it.

Dr. Pluym also pointed out that the overall rate of marijuana use during pregnancy is likely higher today than it was in 2010-2013, before many states legalized its use. “But legalization shouldn’t equal normalization in pregnancy,” she added.

In addition, while the PUQE score assesses symptoms within the previous 12 hours, THC can remain in urine samples anywhere from several days to several weeks after marijuana is used.

”We’re unable to establish cause and effect,” Dr. Metz said, “but what we can conclude is that marijuana use was associated with early pregnancy nausea and vomiting.”

The findings emphasize the need for physicians to ask patients about their use of marijuana and seek to find out why they’re using it, Dr. Metz said. If it’s to treat nausea and vomiting of pregnancy, ob.gyns. should ensure patients are aware of the potential adverse effects of marijuana use in pregnancy and mention safe, effective alternatives. Research from the National Academy of Sciences has shown consistent evidence of decreased fetal growth with marijuana use in pregnancy, but there hasn’t been enough evidence to assess potential long-term neurological effects.

The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Metz and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

Use of marijuana during pregnancy was associated with symptoms of nausea and vomiting and with use of prescribed antiemetics, according to a study presented Feb. 3 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. It’s unclear, however, whether the association suggests that pregnant individuals are using marijuana in an attempt to treat their symptoms or whether the marijuana use is contributing to nausea and vomiting – or neither, Torri D. Metz, MD, of the University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, told attendees.

“Cannabis use has been increasing among pregnant individuals,” Dr. Metz said. “Reported reasons for use range from habit to perceived benefit for treatment of medical conditions, including nausea and vomiting.” She noted a previous study that found that dispensary employees in Colorado recommended cannabis to pregnant callers for treating of nausea despite no clinical evidence of it being an effective treatment.

”Anecdotally, I can say that many patients have told me that marijuana is the only thing that makes them feel better in the first trimester, but that could also be closely tied to marijuana alleviating their other symptoms, such as anxiety or sleep disturbances,” Ilina Pluym, MD, of the department of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. ”In the brain, marijuana acts to alleviate nausea and vomiting, and it has been used successfully to treat nausea [caused by] chemotherapy,” said Dr. Pluym, who attended the abstract presentation but was not involved in the research. “But in the gut, with long-term marijuana use, it can have the opposite effect, which is what is seen in cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome.”

Past research that has identified a link between cannabis use and nausea in pregnancy has typically relied on administrative data or self-reporting that are subject to recall and social desirability bias instead of a biomarker to assess cannabis use. This study therefore assessed marijuana use based on the presence of THC-COOH in urine samples and added the element of investigating antiemetic use in the population.

The study enrolled 10,038 nulliparous pregnant patients from eight U.S. centers from 2010 to 2013 who were an average 11 weeks pregnant. All participants completed the Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) tool at their first study visit and consented to testing of their previously frozen urine samples. The PUQE tool asks participants how often they have experienced nausea, vomiting, or retching or dry heaves within the previous 12 hours. A score of 1-6 is mild, a score of 7-12 is moderate, and a score of 13 or higher is severe.

Overall, 15.8% of participants reported moderate to severe nausea and 38.2% reported mild nausea. A total of 5.8% of participants tested positive for marijuana use based on THC levels in urine. Those with incrementally higher levels of THC, at least 500 ng/mg of creatinine, were 1.6 times more likely to report moderate to severe nausea after accounting for maternal age, body mass index, antiemetic drug use, and gestational age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; P < .001). An association did not exist, however, with any level of nausea overall. Those with higher creatinine levels were also 1.9 times more likely to report vomiting and 1.6 times more likely to report dry heaves or retching (P < .001).

About 1 in 10 participants (9.6%) overall had used a prescription antiemetic drug. Antiemetics were more common among those who had used marijuana: 18% of those with detectable THC had used antiemetics, compared with 12% of those without evidence of cannabis use (P < .001). However, most of those who used marijuana (83%) took only one antiemetic.

Among the study’s limitations were its lack of data on the reasons for cannabis use and the fact that it took place before widespread cannabidiol products became available, which meant most participants were using marijuana by smoking it.

Dr. Pluym also pointed out that the overall rate of marijuana use during pregnancy is likely higher today than it was in 2010-2013, before many states legalized its use. “But legalization shouldn’t equal normalization in pregnancy,” she added.

In addition, while the PUQE score assesses symptoms within the previous 12 hours, THC can remain in urine samples anywhere from several days to several weeks after marijuana is used.

”We’re unable to establish cause and effect,” Dr. Metz said, “but what we can conclude is that marijuana use was associated with early pregnancy nausea and vomiting.”

The findings emphasize the need for physicians to ask patients about their use of marijuana and seek to find out why they’re using it, Dr. Metz said. If it’s to treat nausea and vomiting of pregnancy, ob.gyns. should ensure patients are aware of the potential adverse effects of marijuana use in pregnancy and mention safe, effective alternatives. Research from the National Academy of Sciences has shown consistent evidence of decreased fetal growth with marijuana use in pregnancy, but there hasn’t been enough evidence to assess potential long-term neurological effects.

The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Metz and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

In the country with one of the highest rates of preterm birth in the world, these early deliveries dropped by 24% with a simple intervention: chewing gum with xylitol during pregnancy. The decrease in preterm births was linked to improvement in oral health, according to research presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Although the findings, from a randomized controlled trial of women in Malawi, barely reached statistical significance, the researchers also documented a reduction in periodontitis (gum disease) that appears to correlate with the reduction in early deliveries, according to Kjersti Aagaard, MD, PhD, of Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston.

“For a while, we have known about the association with poor oral health and preterm birth but I am not aware of a study of this magnitude suggesting a simple and effective treatment option,” said Ilina Pluym, MD, an assistant professor in maternal fetal medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation. Dr. Pluym called the new data “compelling” and said the study “adds to our possible strategies to treat a condition that causes a significant burden of disease worldwide.” The findings must be replicated, ideally in countries with lower rates of preterm birth and periodontal disease to see if the effect is similar, before broadly implementing this cheap and simple intervention.

Preterm birth is a leading cause of infant mortality and a major underlying cause of health problems in children under 5 worldwide. As many as 42% of children born preterm have a health condition related to their prematurity or do not survive childhood.

About one in five babies in Malawi are born between 26 and 37 weeks, about double the U.S. rate of 10.8% preterm births, which in this country is considered births that occur between 23 and 37 weeks’ gestation. Researchers also chose Malawi for the trial because residents there see preterm birth as a widespread problem that must be addressed, Dr. Aagaard said.

Multiple previous studies have found a link between periodontal disease and deliveries that are preterm or low birth weight, Dr. Aagaard told attendees. However, 11 randomized controlled trials that involved treating periodontal disease did not reduce preterm birth despite improving periodontitis and oral health.

Dr. Aagaard’s team decided to test the effectiveness of xylitol – a natural prebiotic found in fruits, vegetables, and bran – because harmful oral bacteria cannot metabolize the substance, and regular use of xylitol reduces the number of harmful mouth bacteria while increasing the number of good microbes in the mouth. In addition, a study in 2006 found that children up to 4 years old had fewer cavities and ear infections when their mothers chewed gum containing xylitol and other compounds. Dr. Aagaard noted that gums without xylitol do not appear to produce the same improvements in oral health.

Before beginning the trial, Dr. Aagaard’s group spent 3 years doing a “run-in” study to ensure a larger, longer-term trial in Malawi was feasible. That initial study found a reduction in tooth decay and periodontal inflammation with use of xylitol. The researchers also learned that participants preferred gum over lozenges or lollipops. Nearly all the participants (92%) chewed the gum twice daily.

Among 10,069 women who enrolled in the trial, 96% remained in it until the end. Of the initial total, 4,029 participants underwent an oral health assessment at the start of the study, and 920 had a follow-up oral health assessment.

Of the 4,349 women who chewed xylitol gum, 12.6% gave birth before 37 weeks, compared with 16.5% preterm births among the 5,321 women in the control group – a 24% reduction (P = .045). The 16.5% rate among women not chewing gum was still lower than the national rate of 19.6%, possibly related to the education the participants received, according to the researchers.

No statistically significant reduction occurred for births at less than 34 weeks, but the reduction in late preterm births – babies born between 34 and 37 weeks – was also borderline in statistical significance (P = .049). Only 9.9% of women chewing xylitol gum had a late preterm birth compared to 13.5% of women who only received health education.

The researchers estimated it would take 26 pregnant women chewing xylitol gum to prevent one preterm birth. At a cost of $24-$29 per pregnancy for the gum, preventing each preterm birth in a community would cost $623-$754.

The researchers also observed a 30% reduction in newborns weighing less than 2,500 g (5.5 pounds), with 8.9% of low-birth-weight babies born to moms chewing gum and 12.9% of low-birth-weight babies born to those not provided gum (P = .046). They attributed this reduction in low birth weight to the lower proportion of late preterm births. The groups showed no significant differences in stillbirths or newborn deaths.

The researchers did, however, find a significant reduction in periodontitis among the women who chewed xylitol gum who came for follow-up dental visits. The prevalence of periodontal disease dropped from 31% to 27% in those not chewing gum but from 31% to 21% in gum chewers (P = .04).

“This cannot be attributed to overall oral health, as dental caries composite scores did not significantly differ while periodontitis measures did,” Dr. Aagaard said.

One limitation of the trial is that it was randomized by health centers instead by individual women, although the researchers tried to account for differences that might exist between the populations going to different facilities. Nor did the researchers assess how frequently the participants chewed gum – although the fact that the gum-chewing group had better oral health suggests they appear to have done so regularly.

Whether recommending xylitol chewing gum to pregnant women in other countries would affect rates of preterm birth is unclear. The ideal population for an intervention like this is one where the population has a high rate of periodontal disease or other preterm birth risk factors, Dr. Pluym said.

”Preterm birth is multifactorial,” she said. “There are often multiple risk factors and causes to the complex pathophysiological process and a quick fix is not the solution for everyone.”

The study was funded by the Thrasher Research Fund. Dr. Aagaard and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

This story was updated on Feb. 4, 2022.

In the country with one of the highest rates of preterm birth in the world, these early deliveries dropped by 24% with a simple intervention: chewing gum with xylitol during pregnancy. The decrease in preterm births was linked to improvement in oral health, according to research presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Although the findings, from a randomized controlled trial of women in Malawi, barely reached statistical significance, the researchers also documented a reduction in periodontitis (gum disease) that appears to correlate with the reduction in early deliveries, according to Kjersti Aagaard, MD, PhD, of Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston.

“For a while, we have known about the association with poor oral health and preterm birth but I am not aware of a study of this magnitude suggesting a simple and effective treatment option,” said Ilina Pluym, MD, an assistant professor in maternal fetal medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation. Dr. Pluym called the new data “compelling” and said the study “adds to our possible strategies to treat a condition that causes a significant burden of disease worldwide.” The findings must be replicated, ideally in countries with lower rates of preterm birth and periodontal disease to see if the effect is similar, before broadly implementing this cheap and simple intervention.

Preterm birth is a leading cause of infant mortality and a major underlying cause of health problems in children under 5 worldwide. As many as 42% of children born preterm have a health condition related to their prematurity or do not survive childhood.

About one in five babies in Malawi are born between 26 and 37 weeks, about double the U.S. rate of 10.8% preterm births, which in this country is considered births that occur between 23 and 37 weeks’ gestation. Researchers also chose Malawi for the trial because residents there see preterm birth as a widespread problem that must be addressed, Dr. Aagaard said.

Multiple previous studies have found a link between periodontal disease and deliveries that are preterm or low birth weight, Dr. Aagaard told attendees. However, 11 randomized controlled trials that involved treating periodontal disease did not reduce preterm birth despite improving periodontitis and oral health.

Dr. Aagaard’s team decided to test the effectiveness of xylitol – a natural prebiotic found in fruits, vegetables, and bran – because harmful oral bacteria cannot metabolize the substance, and regular use of xylitol reduces the number of harmful mouth bacteria while increasing the number of good microbes in the mouth. In addition, a study in 2006 found that children up to 4 years old had fewer cavities and ear infections when their mothers chewed gum containing xylitol and other compounds. Dr. Aagaard noted that gums without xylitol do not appear to produce the same improvements in oral health.

Before beginning the trial, Dr. Aagaard’s group spent 3 years doing a “run-in” study to ensure a larger, longer-term trial in Malawi was feasible. That initial study found a reduction in tooth decay and periodontal inflammation with use of xylitol. The researchers also learned that participants preferred gum over lozenges or lollipops. Nearly all the participants (92%) chewed the gum twice daily.

Among 10,069 women who enrolled in the trial, 96% remained in it until the end. Of the initial total, 4,029 participants underwent an oral health assessment at the start of the study, and 920 had a follow-up oral health assessment.

Of the 4,349 women who chewed xylitol gum, 12.6% gave birth before 37 weeks, compared with 16.5% preterm births among the 5,321 women in the control group – a 24% reduction (P = .045). The 16.5% rate among women not chewing gum was still lower than the national rate of 19.6%, possibly related to the education the participants received, according to the researchers.

No statistically significant reduction occurred for births at less than 34 weeks, but the reduction in late preterm births – babies born between 34 and 37 weeks – was also borderline in statistical significance (P = .049). Only 9.9% of women chewing xylitol gum had a late preterm birth compared to 13.5% of women who only received health education.

The researchers estimated it would take 26 pregnant women chewing xylitol gum to prevent one preterm birth. At a cost of $24-$29 per pregnancy for the gum, preventing each preterm birth in a community would cost $623-$754.

The researchers also observed a 30% reduction in newborns weighing less than 2,500 g (5.5 pounds), with 8.9% of low-birth-weight babies born to moms chewing gum and 12.9% of low-birth-weight babies born to those not provided gum (P = .046). They attributed this reduction in low birth weight to the lower proportion of late preterm births. The groups showed no significant differences in stillbirths or newborn deaths.

The researchers did, however, find a significant reduction in periodontitis among the women who chewed xylitol gum who came for follow-up dental visits. The prevalence of periodontal disease dropped from 31% to 27% in those not chewing gum but from 31% to 21% in gum chewers (P = .04).

“This cannot be attributed to overall oral health, as dental caries composite scores did not significantly differ while periodontitis measures did,” Dr. Aagaard said.

One limitation of the trial is that it was randomized by health centers instead by individual women, although the researchers tried to account for differences that might exist between the populations going to different facilities. Nor did the researchers assess how frequently the participants chewed gum – although the fact that the gum-chewing group had better oral health suggests they appear to have done so regularly.

Whether recommending xylitol chewing gum to pregnant women in other countries would affect rates of preterm birth is unclear. The ideal population for an intervention like this is one where the population has a high rate of periodontal disease or other preterm birth risk factors, Dr. Pluym said.

”Preterm birth is multifactorial,” she said. “There are often multiple risk factors and causes to the complex pathophysiological process and a quick fix is not the solution for everyone.”

The study was funded by the Thrasher Research Fund. Dr. Aagaard and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

This story was updated on Feb. 4, 2022.

In the country with one of the highest rates of preterm birth in the world, these early deliveries dropped by 24% with a simple intervention: chewing gum with xylitol during pregnancy. The decrease in preterm births was linked to improvement in oral health, according to research presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Although the findings, from a randomized controlled trial of women in Malawi, barely reached statistical significance, the researchers also documented a reduction in periodontitis (gum disease) that appears to correlate with the reduction in early deliveries, according to Kjersti Aagaard, MD, PhD, of Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston.

“For a while, we have known about the association with poor oral health and preterm birth but I am not aware of a study of this magnitude suggesting a simple and effective treatment option,” said Ilina Pluym, MD, an assistant professor in maternal fetal medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation. Dr. Pluym called the new data “compelling” and said the study “adds to our possible strategies to treat a condition that causes a significant burden of disease worldwide.” The findings must be replicated, ideally in countries with lower rates of preterm birth and periodontal disease to see if the effect is similar, before broadly implementing this cheap and simple intervention.

Preterm birth is a leading cause of infant mortality and a major underlying cause of health problems in children under 5 worldwide. As many as 42% of children born preterm have a health condition related to their prematurity or do not survive childhood.

About one in five babies in Malawi are born between 26 and 37 weeks, about double the U.S. rate of 10.8% preterm births, which in this country is considered births that occur between 23 and 37 weeks’ gestation. Researchers also chose Malawi for the trial because residents there see preterm birth as a widespread problem that must be addressed, Dr. Aagaard said.

Multiple previous studies have found a link between periodontal disease and deliveries that are preterm or low birth weight, Dr. Aagaard told attendees. However, 11 randomized controlled trials that involved treating periodontal disease did not reduce preterm birth despite improving periodontitis and oral health.

Dr. Aagaard’s team decided to test the effectiveness of xylitol – a natural prebiotic found in fruits, vegetables, and bran – because harmful oral bacteria cannot metabolize the substance, and regular use of xylitol reduces the number of harmful mouth bacteria while increasing the number of good microbes in the mouth. In addition, a study in 2006 found that children up to 4 years old had fewer cavities and ear infections when their mothers chewed gum containing xylitol and other compounds. Dr. Aagaard noted that gums without xylitol do not appear to produce the same improvements in oral health.

Before beginning the trial, Dr. Aagaard’s group spent 3 years doing a “run-in” study to ensure a larger, longer-term trial in Malawi was feasible. That initial study found a reduction in tooth decay and periodontal inflammation with use of xylitol. The researchers also learned that participants preferred gum over lozenges or lollipops. Nearly all the participants (92%) chewed the gum twice daily.

Among 10,069 women who enrolled in the trial, 96% remained in it until the end. Of the initial total, 4,029 participants underwent an oral health assessment at the start of the study, and 920 had a follow-up oral health assessment.

Of the 4,349 women who chewed xylitol gum, 12.6% gave birth before 37 weeks, compared with 16.5% preterm births among the 5,321 women in the control group – a 24% reduction (P = .045). The 16.5% rate among women not chewing gum was still lower than the national rate of 19.6%, possibly related to the education the participants received, according to the researchers.

No statistically significant reduction occurred for births at less than 34 weeks, but the reduction in late preterm births – babies born between 34 and 37 weeks – was also borderline in statistical significance (P = .049). Only 9.9% of women chewing xylitol gum had a late preterm birth compared to 13.5% of women who only received health education.

The researchers estimated it would take 26 pregnant women chewing xylitol gum to prevent one preterm birth. At a cost of $24-$29 per pregnancy for the gum, preventing each preterm birth in a community would cost $623-$754.

The researchers also observed a 30% reduction in newborns weighing less than 2,500 g (5.5 pounds), with 8.9% of low-birth-weight babies born to moms chewing gum and 12.9% of low-birth-weight babies born to those not provided gum (P = .046). They attributed this reduction in low birth weight to the lower proportion of late preterm births. The groups showed no significant differences in stillbirths or newborn deaths.

The researchers did, however, find a significant reduction in periodontitis among the women who chewed xylitol gum who came for follow-up dental visits. The prevalence of periodontal disease dropped from 31% to 27% in those not chewing gum but from 31% to 21% in gum chewers (P = .04).

“This cannot be attributed to overall oral health, as dental caries composite scores did not significantly differ while periodontitis measures did,” Dr. Aagaard said.

One limitation of the trial is that it was randomized by health centers instead by individual women, although the researchers tried to account for differences that might exist between the populations going to different facilities. Nor did the researchers assess how frequently the participants chewed gum – although the fact that the gum-chewing group had better oral health suggests they appear to have done so regularly.

Whether recommending xylitol chewing gum to pregnant women in other countries would affect rates of preterm birth is unclear. The ideal population for an intervention like this is one where the population has a high rate of periodontal disease or other preterm birth risk factors, Dr. Pluym said.

”Preterm birth is multifactorial,” she said. “There are often multiple risk factors and causes to the complex pathophysiological process and a quick fix is not the solution for everyone.”

The study was funded by the Thrasher Research Fund. Dr. Aagaard and Dr. Pluym reported no disclosures.

This story was updated on Feb. 4, 2022.