A clinical algorithm developed in Singapore improved glycemic control fourfold among Muslims with diabetes who fast during Ramadan, according to results from a randomized trial.

Ramadan is a challenge for Muslims with diabetes worldwide. Observing the month-long fast requires a dramatic break from normal eating patterns, which includes abstaining from food and liquids, including medications, from dawn to dusk. Not adjusting medications during fasting may harm glycemic control, and though international guidelines have become available in recent years, a large multinational study showed that fewer than 40% of people with diabetes got help from clinicians on medication management during Ramadan (Diabet Med. 2015;32[6]:819-828).

The Fasting Algorithm for Singaporeans With Type 2 Diabetes (FAST), developed and validated in 2018 by Joyce Lee, PharmD, and her colleagues at the National University of Singapore, is a clinical decision-making tool for both clinicians and patients. It involves clinicians engaging in risk-assessment screening of patients and educating patients on self-monitoring of blood glucose timing and technique, hypoglycemia management, nutrition, and Ramadan-related misconceptions. FAST also provides glucose-lowering medication modification guidance for clinicians along with patient self-dose adjustment guidance based on self-monitoring of blood glucose four times a day. The algorithm specifically requires patients to check their blood glucose levels before their sunset meal, two hours after their sunset meal, before their predawn meal, and a fourth time each day of their choice.

For their new study, published March 9 in Annals of Family Medicine, Dr. Lee and colleagues tested the algorithm in a clinical trial in which patients and clinicians were randomized to follow FAST protocols or receive and provide standard care. All patients (n = 97; mean age 59.5 years; 60% female) had glycated hemoglobin of 9.5% or higher, no history of recurrent hypoglycemia, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min at baseline (before Ramadan). These patients partook in Ramadan fasting and were willing to self-monitor blood glucose during the study. Pregnant women and people taking corticosteroids were excluded.

The trial took place during two different Ramadan cycles during 2017-2018, and the main endpoint was glycemic control pre- and post-Ramadan. Dr. Lee and her colleagues reported that patients in the algorithm arm (n = 46), showed four times the amount of improvement in HbA1c (–0.4%; –4.4 mmol/mol), compared with subjects receiving standard care (–0.1%; P = .049).

Mean fasting blood glucose decreased in the intervention group (–3.6 mg/dL) and increased in the control group (+20.9 mg/dL) over the study period (P = .034). The control group saw more confirmed incidents of minor hypoglycemia than did the intervention group, but these did not reach statistical significance.

“Before this study, the effect of Ramadan fasting on glycemic control was found to be affected by support from health care clinicians,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “By standardizing diabetes care with the FAST tool, intervention participants showed four times the amount of improvement in glycemic control,” compared with controls. The investigators described the open-label design and the potential for different management practices among the participating clinicians having been used as weaknesses of the study.

In an editorial comment accompanying the article by Dr. Lee and colleagues, Jonathan G. Gabison, MD, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, praised the study as demonstrating “that persons with type 2 diabetes can, with the help of their physicians, engage in safe fasting practices, and they can attain positive health benefits” (Ann Fam Med. 2020;18:98-99). Patients observing the FAST protocol “are less likely to avoid their doctors and have an improved therapeutic relationship with the medical community in their time of spiritual work.” But the study has implications beyond the observant Muslim community, Dr. Gabison argued, as “people with or without diabetes are more frequently engaging in the practice of fasting ... Although a controversial topic in the medical and nutritional community, patients, including those with type 2 diabetes, are increasingly using it as a strategy for weight loss or health benefits.”

While more research is needed, Dr. Gabison wrote, “a protocol to manage diabetes medications safely with intermittent fasting may help keep patients safe while we learn more about the use of these strategies to help combat obesity and diabetes.”

The Singapore Ministry of Education funded Dr. Lee and colleagues’ study. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gabison also reported no conflicts related to his editorial.

SOURCE: Lee et al. Ann Family Med. 2020;18:139-47.

A clinical algorithm developed in Singapore improved glycemic control fourfold among Muslims with diabetes who fast during Ramadan, according to results from a randomized trial.

Ramadan is a challenge for Muslims with diabetes worldwide. Observing the month-long fast requires a dramatic break from normal eating patterns, which includes abstaining from food and liquids, including medications, from dawn to dusk. Not adjusting medications during fasting may harm glycemic control, and though international guidelines have become available in recent years, a large multinational study showed that fewer than 40% of people with diabetes got help from clinicians on medication management during Ramadan (Diabet Med. 2015;32[6]:819-828).

The Fasting Algorithm for Singaporeans With Type 2 Diabetes (FAST), developed and validated in 2018 by Joyce Lee, PharmD, and her colleagues at the National University of Singapore, is a clinical decision-making tool for both clinicians and patients. It involves clinicians engaging in risk-assessment screening of patients and educating patients on self-monitoring of blood glucose timing and technique, hypoglycemia management, nutrition, and Ramadan-related misconceptions. FAST also provides glucose-lowering medication modification guidance for clinicians along with patient self-dose adjustment guidance based on self-monitoring of blood glucose four times a day. The algorithm specifically requires patients to check their blood glucose levels before their sunset meal, two hours after their sunset meal, before their predawn meal, and a fourth time each day of their choice.

For their new study, published March 9 in Annals of Family Medicine, Dr. Lee and colleagues tested the algorithm in a clinical trial in which patients and clinicians were randomized to follow FAST protocols or receive and provide standard care. All patients (n = 97; mean age 59.5 years; 60% female) had glycated hemoglobin of 9.5% or higher, no history of recurrent hypoglycemia, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min at baseline (before Ramadan). These patients partook in Ramadan fasting and were willing to self-monitor blood glucose during the study. Pregnant women and people taking corticosteroids were excluded.

The trial took place during two different Ramadan cycles during 2017-2018, and the main endpoint was glycemic control pre- and post-Ramadan. Dr. Lee and her colleagues reported that patients in the algorithm arm (n = 46), showed four times the amount of improvement in HbA1c (–0.4%; –4.4 mmol/mol), compared with subjects receiving standard care (–0.1%; P = .049).

Mean fasting blood glucose decreased in the intervention group (–3.6 mg/dL) and increased in the control group (+20.9 mg/dL) over the study period (P = .034). The control group saw more confirmed incidents of minor hypoglycemia than did the intervention group, but these did not reach statistical significance.

“Before this study, the effect of Ramadan fasting on glycemic control was found to be affected by support from health care clinicians,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “By standardizing diabetes care with the FAST tool, intervention participants showed four times the amount of improvement in glycemic control,” compared with controls. The investigators described the open-label design and the potential for different management practices among the participating clinicians having been used as weaknesses of the study.

In an editorial comment accompanying the article by Dr. Lee and colleagues, Jonathan G. Gabison, MD, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, praised the study as demonstrating “that persons with type 2 diabetes can, with the help of their physicians, engage in safe fasting practices, and they can attain positive health benefits” (Ann Fam Med. 2020;18:98-99). Patients observing the FAST protocol “are less likely to avoid their doctors and have an improved therapeutic relationship with the medical community in their time of spiritual work.” But the study has implications beyond the observant Muslim community, Dr. Gabison argued, as “people with or without diabetes are more frequently engaging in the practice of fasting ... Although a controversial topic in the medical and nutritional community, patients, including those with type 2 diabetes, are increasingly using it as a strategy for weight loss or health benefits.”

While more research is needed, Dr. Gabison wrote, “a protocol to manage diabetes medications safely with intermittent fasting may help keep patients safe while we learn more about the use of these strategies to help combat obesity and diabetes.”

The Singapore Ministry of Education funded Dr. Lee and colleagues’ study. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gabison also reported no conflicts related to his editorial.

SOURCE: Lee et al. Ann Family Med. 2020;18:139-47.

A clinical algorithm developed in Singapore improved glycemic control fourfold among Muslims with diabetes who fast during Ramadan, according to results from a randomized trial.

Ramadan is a challenge for Muslims with diabetes worldwide. Observing the month-long fast requires a dramatic break from normal eating patterns, which includes abstaining from food and liquids, including medications, from dawn to dusk. Not adjusting medications during fasting may harm glycemic control, and though international guidelines have become available in recent years, a large multinational study showed that fewer than 40% of people with diabetes got help from clinicians on medication management during Ramadan (Diabet Med. 2015;32[6]:819-828).

The Fasting Algorithm for Singaporeans With Type 2 Diabetes (FAST), developed and validated in 2018 by Joyce Lee, PharmD, and her colleagues at the National University of Singapore, is a clinical decision-making tool for both clinicians and patients. It involves clinicians engaging in risk-assessment screening of patients and educating patients on self-monitoring of blood glucose timing and technique, hypoglycemia management, nutrition, and Ramadan-related misconceptions. FAST also provides glucose-lowering medication modification guidance for clinicians along with patient self-dose adjustment guidance based on self-monitoring of blood glucose four times a day. The algorithm specifically requires patients to check their blood glucose levels before their sunset meal, two hours after their sunset meal, before their predawn meal, and a fourth time each day of their choice.

For their new study, published March 9 in Annals of Family Medicine, Dr. Lee and colleagues tested the algorithm in a clinical trial in which patients and clinicians were randomized to follow FAST protocols or receive and provide standard care. All patients (n = 97; mean age 59.5 years; 60% female) had glycated hemoglobin of 9.5% or higher, no history of recurrent hypoglycemia, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min at baseline (before Ramadan). These patients partook in Ramadan fasting and were willing to self-monitor blood glucose during the study. Pregnant women and people taking corticosteroids were excluded.

The trial took place during two different Ramadan cycles during 2017-2018, and the main endpoint was glycemic control pre- and post-Ramadan. Dr. Lee and her colleagues reported that patients in the algorithm arm (n = 46), showed four times the amount of improvement in HbA1c (–0.4%; –4.4 mmol/mol), compared with subjects receiving standard care (–0.1%; P = .049).

Mean fasting blood glucose decreased in the intervention group (–3.6 mg/dL) and increased in the control group (+20.9 mg/dL) over the study period (P = .034). The control group saw more confirmed incidents of minor hypoglycemia than did the intervention group, but these did not reach statistical significance.

“Before this study, the effect of Ramadan fasting on glycemic control was found to be affected by support from health care clinicians,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “By standardizing diabetes care with the FAST tool, intervention participants showed four times the amount of improvement in glycemic control,” compared with controls. The investigators described the open-label design and the potential for different management practices among the participating clinicians having been used as weaknesses of the study.

In an editorial comment accompanying the article by Dr. Lee and colleagues, Jonathan G. Gabison, MD, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, praised the study as demonstrating “that persons with type 2 diabetes can, with the help of their physicians, engage in safe fasting practices, and they can attain positive health benefits” (Ann Fam Med. 2020;18:98-99). Patients observing the FAST protocol “are less likely to avoid their doctors and have an improved therapeutic relationship with the medical community in their time of spiritual work.” But the study has implications beyond the observant Muslim community, Dr. Gabison argued, as “people with or without diabetes are more frequently engaging in the practice of fasting ... Although a controversial topic in the medical and nutritional community, patients, including those with type 2 diabetes, are increasingly using it as a strategy for weight loss or health benefits.”

While more research is needed, Dr. Gabison wrote, “a protocol to manage diabetes medications safely with intermittent fasting may help keep patients safe while we learn more about the use of these strategies to help combat obesity and diabetes.”

The Singapore Ministry of Education funded Dr. Lee and colleagues’ study. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gabison also reported no conflicts related to his editorial.

SOURCE: Lee et al. Ann Family Med. 2020;18:139-47.

Although a 14-day quarantine after exposure to novel coronavirus is “well supported” by evidence, some infected individuals will not become symptomatic until after that period, according to authors of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Most individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will develop symptoms by day 12 of the infection, which is within the 14-day period of active monitoring currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the authors wrote.

However, an estimated 101 out of 10,000 cases could become symptomatic after the end of that 14-day monitoring period, they cautioned.

“Our analyses do not preclude that estimate from being higher,” said the investigators, led by Stephen A. Lauer, PhD, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

The analysis, based on 181 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that were documented outside of the outbreak epicenter, Wuhan, China, makes “more conservative assumptions” about the window of symptom onset and potential for continued exposure, compared with analyses in previous studies, the researchers wrote.

The estimated incubation period for SARS-CoV-2 in the 181-patient study was a median of 5.1 days, which is comparable with previous estimates based on COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan and consistent with other known human coronavirus diseases, such as SARS, which had a reported mean incubation period of 5 days, Dr. Lauer and colleagues noted.

Symptoms developed within 11.5 days for 97.5% of patients in the study.

Whether it’s acceptable to have 101 out of 10,000 cases becoming symptomatic beyond the recommended quarantine window depends on two factors, according to the authors. The first is the expected infection risk in the population that is being monitored, and the second is “judgment about the cost of missing cases,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y., said that in practical terms, the results suggest that the majority of patients with COVID-19 will be identified within 14 days, with an “outside chance” of an infected individual leaving quarantine and transmitting virus for a short period of time before becoming symptomatic.

“I think the proper message to give those patients [who are asymptomatic upon leaving quarantine] is, ‘after 14 days, we’re pretty sure you’re out of the woods, but should you get any symptoms, immediately requarantine yourself and seek medical care,” he said.

Study coauthor Kyra H. Grantz, a doctoral graduate student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that extending a quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered in the highest-risk scenarios, though the benefits of doing so would have to be weighed against the costs to public health and to the individuals under quarantine.

“Our estimate of the incubation period definitely supports the 14-day recommendation that the CDC has been using,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Grantz emphasized that the estimate of 101 out of 10,000 cases developing symptoms after day 14 of active monitoring – representing the 99th percentile of cases – assumes the “most conservative, worst-case scenario” in a population that is fully infected.

“If you’re looking at a following a cohort of 1,000 people whom you think may have been exposed, only a certain percentage will be infected, and only a certain percentage of those will even develop symptoms – before we get to this idea of how many people would we miss,” she said.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Four authors reported disclosures related to those entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lauer SA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 9. doi:10.1101/2020.02.02.20020016.

Although a 14-day quarantine after exposure to novel coronavirus is “well supported” by evidence, some infected individuals will not become symptomatic until after that period, according to authors of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Most individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will develop symptoms by day 12 of the infection, which is within the 14-day period of active monitoring currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the authors wrote.

However, an estimated 101 out of 10,000 cases could become symptomatic after the end of that 14-day monitoring period, they cautioned.

“Our analyses do not preclude that estimate from being higher,” said the investigators, led by Stephen A. Lauer, PhD, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

The analysis, based on 181 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that were documented outside of the outbreak epicenter, Wuhan, China, makes “more conservative assumptions” about the window of symptom onset and potential for continued exposure, compared with analyses in previous studies, the researchers wrote.

The estimated incubation period for SARS-CoV-2 in the 181-patient study was a median of 5.1 days, which is comparable with previous estimates based on COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan and consistent with other known human coronavirus diseases, such as SARS, which had a reported mean incubation period of 5 days, Dr. Lauer and colleagues noted.

Symptoms developed within 11.5 days for 97.5% of patients in the study.

Whether it’s acceptable to have 101 out of 10,000 cases becoming symptomatic beyond the recommended quarantine window depends on two factors, according to the authors. The first is the expected infection risk in the population that is being monitored, and the second is “judgment about the cost of missing cases,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y., said that in practical terms, the results suggest that the majority of patients with COVID-19 will be identified within 14 days, with an “outside chance” of an infected individual leaving quarantine and transmitting virus for a short period of time before becoming symptomatic.

“I think the proper message to give those patients [who are asymptomatic upon leaving quarantine] is, ‘after 14 days, we’re pretty sure you’re out of the woods, but should you get any symptoms, immediately requarantine yourself and seek medical care,” he said.

Study coauthor Kyra H. Grantz, a doctoral graduate student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that extending a quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered in the highest-risk scenarios, though the benefits of doing so would have to be weighed against the costs to public health and to the individuals under quarantine.

“Our estimate of the incubation period definitely supports the 14-day recommendation that the CDC has been using,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Grantz emphasized that the estimate of 101 out of 10,000 cases developing symptoms after day 14 of active monitoring – representing the 99th percentile of cases – assumes the “most conservative, worst-case scenario” in a population that is fully infected.

“If you’re looking at a following a cohort of 1,000 people whom you think may have been exposed, only a certain percentage will be infected, and only a certain percentage of those will even develop symptoms – before we get to this idea of how many people would we miss,” she said.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Four authors reported disclosures related to those entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lauer SA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 9. doi:10.1101/2020.02.02.20020016.

Although a 14-day quarantine after exposure to novel coronavirus is “well supported” by evidence, some infected individuals will not become symptomatic until after that period, according to authors of a recent analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Most individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will develop symptoms by day 12 of the infection, which is within the 14-day period of active monitoring currently recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the authors wrote.

However, an estimated 101 out of 10,000 cases could become symptomatic after the end of that 14-day monitoring period, they cautioned.

“Our analyses do not preclude that estimate from being higher,” said the investigators, led by Stephen A. Lauer, PhD, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

The analysis, based on 181 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that were documented outside of the outbreak epicenter, Wuhan, China, makes “more conservative assumptions” about the window of symptom onset and potential for continued exposure, compared with analyses in previous studies, the researchers wrote.

The estimated incubation period for SARS-CoV-2 in the 181-patient study was a median of 5.1 days, which is comparable with previous estimates based on COVID-19 cases outside of Wuhan and consistent with other known human coronavirus diseases, such as SARS, which had a reported mean incubation period of 5 days, Dr. Lauer and colleagues noted.

Symptoms developed within 11.5 days for 97.5% of patients in the study.

Whether it’s acceptable to have 101 out of 10,000 cases becoming symptomatic beyond the recommended quarantine window depends on two factors, according to the authors. The first is the expected infection risk in the population that is being monitored, and the second is “judgment about the cost of missing cases,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Aaron Eli Glatt, MD, chair of medicine at Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y., said that in practical terms, the results suggest that the majority of patients with COVID-19 will be identified within 14 days, with an “outside chance” of an infected individual leaving quarantine and transmitting virus for a short period of time before becoming symptomatic.

“I think the proper message to give those patients [who are asymptomatic upon leaving quarantine] is, ‘after 14 days, we’re pretty sure you’re out of the woods, but should you get any symptoms, immediately requarantine yourself and seek medical care,” he said.

Study coauthor Kyra H. Grantz, a doctoral graduate student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that extending a quarantine beyond 14 days might be considered in the highest-risk scenarios, though the benefits of doing so would have to be weighed against the costs to public health and to the individuals under quarantine.

“Our estimate of the incubation period definitely supports the 14-day recommendation that the CDC has been using,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Grantz emphasized that the estimate of 101 out of 10,000 cases developing symptoms after day 14 of active monitoring – representing the 99th percentile of cases – assumes the “most conservative, worst-case scenario” in a population that is fully infected.

“If you’re looking at a following a cohort of 1,000 people whom you think may have been exposed, only a certain percentage will be infected, and only a certain percentage of those will even develop symptoms – before we get to this idea of how many people would we miss,” she said.

The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Four authors reported disclosures related to those entities, and the remaining five reported no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Lauer SA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Mar 9. doi:10.1101/2020.02.02.20020016.

The American College of Cardiology has canceled its annual scientific sessions scheduled for March 28-30 in Chicago because of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it announced on March 9.

Alblec/Thinkstock

The “difficult decision” to cancel ACC.20/WCC, held together with the World Congress of Cardiology this year, was made not only in consideration of information and guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization, but also because institutions are increasingly putting travel restrictions on personnel.

“With an ever-increasing number of ACC members on the front lines of preparing and reacting to the COVID-19 outbreak worldwide, it is in the best interest of everyone to cancel the meeting and ensure our members are able to do what they do best – help and heal,” ACC President Richard J. Kovacs, MD, said in a press statement.

Here are key points from the college, according to an FAQ page created for attendees:

• The meeting is canceled, not postponed. The meeting’s tremendous size and years-long organizational requirements make rescheduling in 2020 impossible.
• All ancillary events are canceled. This includes independent certified sessions and noncertified prime-time exhibitor events, run by the ACC, exhibitors, nonprofits, universities, and others.
• Registration fees will be refunded, but no travel or hotel expenses. If you booked your hotel through ACC’s housing block, Experient will automatically cancel the reservation. You’ll have to cancel your flight directly. The major airlines are rolling out refund and change fee policies in response to the COVID-19–related cancellations, Market Watch reported.
• Late-breakers and simultaneous publications, virtually. Organizers are working on virtual presentations. Priorities listed include embargoed Late-Breaking Clinical Trial presentations, and studies to be published simultaneously with presentations in journals. Whether other presentations will occur as scheduled has yet to be worked out.
• Presenters, stay tuned. If you were planning on presenting science, the organizers stress that you should continue your preparations as options for virtual presentations are worked out.

MDedge Cardiology will bring you the latest news from ACC.20/WCC as usual.


chackett@mdedge.com

The American College of Cardiology has canceled its annual scientific sessions scheduled for March 28-30 in Chicago because of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it announced on March 9.

Alblec/Thinkstock

The “difficult decision” to cancel ACC.20/WCC, held together with the World Congress of Cardiology this year, was made not only in consideration of information and guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization, but also because institutions are increasingly putting travel restrictions on personnel.

“With an ever-increasing number of ACC members on the front lines of preparing and reacting to the COVID-19 outbreak worldwide, it is in the best interest of everyone to cancel the meeting and ensure our members are able to do what they do best – help and heal,” ACC President Richard J. Kovacs, MD, said in a press statement.

Here are key points from the college, according to an FAQ page created for attendees:

• The meeting is canceled, not postponed. The meeting’s tremendous size and years-long organizational requirements make rescheduling in 2020 impossible.
• All ancillary events are canceled. This includes independent certified sessions and noncertified prime-time exhibitor events, run by the ACC, exhibitors, nonprofits, universities, and others.
• Registration fees will be refunded, but no travel or hotel expenses. If you booked your hotel through ACC’s housing block, Experient will automatically cancel the reservation. You’ll have to cancel your flight directly. The major airlines are rolling out refund and change fee policies in response to the COVID-19–related cancellations, Market Watch reported.
• Late-breakers and simultaneous publications, virtually. Organizers are working on virtual presentations. Priorities listed include embargoed Late-Breaking Clinical Trial presentations, and studies to be published simultaneously with presentations in journals. Whether other presentations will occur as scheduled has yet to be worked out.
• Presenters, stay tuned. If you were planning on presenting science, the organizers stress that you should continue your preparations as options for virtual presentations are worked out.

MDedge Cardiology will bring you the latest news from ACC.20/WCC as usual.


chackett@mdedge.com

The American College of Cardiology has canceled its annual scientific sessions scheduled for March 28-30 in Chicago because of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it announced on March 9.

Alblec/Thinkstock

The “difficult decision” to cancel ACC.20/WCC, held together with the World Congress of Cardiology this year, was made not only in consideration of information and guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization, but also because institutions are increasingly putting travel restrictions on personnel.

“With an ever-increasing number of ACC members on the front lines of preparing and reacting to the COVID-19 outbreak worldwide, it is in the best interest of everyone to cancel the meeting and ensure our members are able to do what they do best – help and heal,” ACC President Richard J. Kovacs, MD, said in a press statement.

Here are key points from the college, according to an FAQ page created for attendees:

• The meeting is canceled, not postponed. The meeting’s tremendous size and years-long organizational requirements make rescheduling in 2020 impossible.
• All ancillary events are canceled. This includes independent certified sessions and noncertified prime-time exhibitor events, run by the ACC, exhibitors, nonprofits, universities, and others.
• Registration fees will be refunded, but no travel or hotel expenses. If you booked your hotel through ACC’s housing block, Experient will automatically cancel the reservation. You’ll have to cancel your flight directly. The major airlines are rolling out refund and change fee policies in response to the COVID-19–related cancellations, Market Watch reported.
• Late-breakers and simultaneous publications, virtually. Organizers are working on virtual presentations. Priorities listed include embargoed Late-Breaking Clinical Trial presentations, and studies to be published simultaneously with presentations in journals. Whether other presentations will occur as scheduled has yet to be worked out.
• Presenters, stay tuned. If you were planning on presenting science, the organizers stress that you should continue your preparations as options for virtual presentations are worked out.

MDedge Cardiology will bring you the latest news from ACC.20/WCC as usual.


chackett@mdedge.com

He Y, Zhong J, Zhou W, et al. Four surgical strategies for the treatment of cesarean scar defect: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:593-602.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

With the increase in cesarean deliveries performed over the decades, the sequelae of the surgery are now arising. Cesarean scar defects (CSDs) are a complication seen when the endometrium and muscular layers from a prior uterine scar are damaged. This damage in the uterine scar can lead to abnormal uterine bleeding and the implantation of an ectopic pregnancy, which can be life-threatening. Ultrasonography can be used to diagnose this defect, which can appear as a hypoechoic space filled with postmenstrual blood, representing a myometrial tear at the wound site.¹ There are several risk factors for CSD, including multiple cesarean deliveries, cesarean delivery during advanced stages of labor, and uterine incisions near the cervix. Elevated body mass index as well as gestational diabetes also have been found to be associated with inadequate healing of the prior cesarean incision.² Studies have shown that both single- and double-layer closure of the hysterotomy during a cesarean delivery have similar incidences of CSDs.^3,4 There are multiple ways to correct a CSD; however, there is no gold standard that has been identified in the literature.

Details about the study

The study by He and colleagues is a meta-analysis aimed at comparing the treatment of CSDs via laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, combined hysteroscopy and laparoscopy, and vaginal repair. The primary outcome measures were reduction in abnormal uterine bleeding and scar defect depth. A total of 10 studies (n = 858) were reviewed: 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 observational studies. The studies analyzed varied in terms of which techniques were compared.

Patients who underwent uterine scar resection by combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy had a shorter duration of abnormal uterine bleeding when compared with hysteroscopy alone (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37−2.36; P = .007) and vaginal repair (SMD = 1.58; 95% CI, 0.97−2.19; P<.0001). Combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic technique also was found to reduce the diverticulum depth more than in vaginal repair (SMD = 1.57; 95% CI, 0.54−2.61; P = .003).

Continue to: Study strengths and weaknesses...

Study strengths and weaknesses

This is the first meta-analysis to compare the different surgical techniques to correct a CSD. The authors were able to compare many of the characteristics regarding the routes of repair, including hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, and vaginal. The authors were able to analyze the combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic approach, which facilitates evaluation of the location and satisfaction of defect repair during the procedure.

Some weaknesses of this study include the limited amount of RCTs available for review. All studies were also from China, where the rate of CSDs is higher. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to all populations. Given that the included studies were done at different sites, it is difficult to determine surgical expertise and surgical technique. Additionally, the studies analyzed varied by which techniques were compared; therefore, indirect analyses were conducted to compare certain techniques. There was limited follow-up for these patients (anywhere from 3 to 6 months), so long-term data and future pregnancy data are needed to determine the efficacy of these procedures.

He Y, Zhong J, Zhou W, et al. Four surgical strategies for the treatment of cesarean scar defect: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:593-602.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

With the increase in cesarean deliveries performed over the decades, the sequelae of the surgery are now arising. Cesarean scar defects (CSDs) are a complication seen when the endometrium and muscular layers from a prior uterine scar are damaged. This damage in the uterine scar can lead to abnormal uterine bleeding and the implantation of an ectopic pregnancy, which can be life-threatening. Ultrasonography can be used to diagnose this defect, which can appear as a hypoechoic space filled with postmenstrual blood, representing a myometrial tear at the wound site.¹ There are several risk factors for CSD, including multiple cesarean deliveries, cesarean delivery during advanced stages of labor, and uterine incisions near the cervix. Elevated body mass index as well as gestational diabetes also have been found to be associated with inadequate healing of the prior cesarean incision.² Studies have shown that both single- and double-layer closure of the hysterotomy during a cesarean delivery have similar incidences of CSDs.^3,4 There are multiple ways to correct a CSD; however, there is no gold standard that has been identified in the literature.

Details about the study

The study by He and colleagues is a meta-analysis aimed at comparing the treatment of CSDs via laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, combined hysteroscopy and laparoscopy, and vaginal repair. The primary outcome measures were reduction in abnormal uterine bleeding and scar defect depth. A total of 10 studies (n = 858) were reviewed: 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 observational studies. The studies analyzed varied in terms of which techniques were compared.

Patients who underwent uterine scar resection by combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy had a shorter duration of abnormal uterine bleeding when compared with hysteroscopy alone (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37−2.36; P = .007) and vaginal repair (SMD = 1.58; 95% CI, 0.97−2.19; P<.0001). Combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic technique also was found to reduce the diverticulum depth more than in vaginal repair (SMD = 1.57; 95% CI, 0.54−2.61; P = .003).

Continue to: Study strengths and weaknesses...

Study strengths and weaknesses

This is the first meta-analysis to compare the different surgical techniques to correct a CSD. The authors were able to compare many of the characteristics regarding the routes of repair, including hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, and vaginal. The authors were able to analyze the combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic approach, which facilitates evaluation of the location and satisfaction of defect repair during the procedure.

Some weaknesses of this study include the limited amount of RCTs available for review. All studies were also from China, where the rate of CSDs is higher. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to all populations. Given that the included studies were done at different sites, it is difficult to determine surgical expertise and surgical technique. Additionally, the studies analyzed varied by which techniques were compared; therefore, indirect analyses were conducted to compare certain techniques. There was limited follow-up for these patients (anywhere from 3 to 6 months), so long-term data and future pregnancy data are needed to determine the efficacy of these procedures.

He Y, Zhong J, Zhou W, et al. Four surgical strategies for the treatment of cesarean scar defect: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:593-602.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

With the increase in cesarean deliveries performed over the decades, the sequelae of the surgery are now arising. Cesarean scar defects (CSDs) are a complication seen when the endometrium and muscular layers from a prior uterine scar are damaged. This damage in the uterine scar can lead to abnormal uterine bleeding and the implantation of an ectopic pregnancy, which can be life-threatening. Ultrasonography can be used to diagnose this defect, which can appear as a hypoechoic space filled with postmenstrual blood, representing a myometrial tear at the wound site.¹ There are several risk factors for CSD, including multiple cesarean deliveries, cesarean delivery during advanced stages of labor, and uterine incisions near the cervix. Elevated body mass index as well as gestational diabetes also have been found to be associated with inadequate healing of the prior cesarean incision.² Studies have shown that both single- and double-layer closure of the hysterotomy during a cesarean delivery have similar incidences of CSDs.^3,4 There are multiple ways to correct a CSD; however, there is no gold standard that has been identified in the literature.

Details about the study

The study by He and colleagues is a meta-analysis aimed at comparing the treatment of CSDs via laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, combined hysteroscopy and laparoscopy, and vaginal repair. The primary outcome measures were reduction in abnormal uterine bleeding and scar defect depth. A total of 10 studies (n = 858) were reviewed: 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6 observational studies. The studies analyzed varied in terms of which techniques were compared.

Patients who underwent uterine scar resection by combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy had a shorter duration of abnormal uterine bleeding when compared with hysteroscopy alone (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37−2.36; P = .007) and vaginal repair (SMD = 1.58; 95% CI, 0.97−2.19; P<.0001). Combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic technique also was found to reduce the diverticulum depth more than in vaginal repair (SMD = 1.57; 95% CI, 0.54−2.61; P = .003).

Continue to: Study strengths and weaknesses...

Study strengths and weaknesses

This is the first meta-analysis to compare the different surgical techniques to correct a CSD. The authors were able to compare many of the characteristics regarding the routes of repair, including hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, and vaginal. The authors were able to analyze the combined laparoscopic and hysteroscopic approach, which facilitates evaluation of the location and satisfaction of defect repair during the procedure.

Some weaknesses of this study include the limited amount of RCTs available for review. All studies were also from China, where the rate of CSDs is higher. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to all populations. Given that the included studies were done at different sites, it is difficult to determine surgical expertise and surgical technique. Additionally, the studies analyzed varied by which techniques were compared; therefore, indirect analyses were conducted to compare certain techniques. There was limited follow-up for these patients (anywhere from 3 to 6 months), so long-term data and future pregnancy data are needed to determine the efficacy of these procedures.

You learned a lot of things in medical school. But there must have been some things that you unlearned on the way to your degree. For instance, you unlearned that you could catch a cold by playing outside on a cold damp day without your jacket. You unlearned that handling a toad would give you warts.

©KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The authors of a recent study suggest that over your 4 years in medical school you also unlearned how to be empathetic (“Does Empathy Decline in the Clinical Phase of Medical Education? A Nationwide, Multi-institutional, Cross-Sectional Study of Students at DO-Granting Medical Schools,” Acad Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003175). The researchers surveyed more than 10,000 medical students at nearly 50 DO-granting medical schools using standardized questionnaire called the Jefferson Scale of Empathy. They discovered that the students in the clinical phase (years 3 and 4) had lower “empathy scores” than the students in the preclinical phase of their education (years 1 and 2). This decline was statistically significant but “negligible” in magnitude. One wonders why they even chose to publish their results, particularly when the number of respondents to the web-based survey declined with each successive year in medical school. Having looked at the a sample of some of the questions being asked, I can understand why third- and fourth-year students couldn’t be bothered to respond. They were too busy to answer a few dozen “lame” questions.

There may be a decline in empathy over the course our medical training, but I’m not sure that this study can speak to it. An older study found that although medical students scores on a self-administered scale declined between the second and third year, the observed empathetic behavior actually increased. If I had to choose, I would lean more heavily on the results of the behavioral observations.

Certainly, we all changed over the course of our medical education. Including postgraduate training, it may have lasted a decade or more. We saw hundreds of patients, observed life and death on a scale and with an intensity that most of us previously had never experienced. Our perspective changed from being a naive observer to playing the role of an active participant. Did that change include a decline in our capacity for empathy?

Something had to change. We found quickly that we didn’t have the time or emotional energy to learn as much about the person hiding behind every complaint as we once thought we should. We had to cut corners. Sometimes we cut too many. On the other hand, as we saw more patients we may have learned more efficient ways of discovering what we needed to know about them to become an effective and caring physician. If we found ourselves in a specialty in which patients have a high mortality, we were forced to learn ways of protecting ourselves from the emotional damage.

What would you call this process? Was it empathy erosion? Was it a hardening or toughening? Or was it simply maturation? Whatever term you use, it was an obligatory process if we hoped to survive. However, not all of us have done it well. Some of us have narrowed our focus to see only the complaint and the diagnosis, and we too often fail to see the human hiding in plain sight.

For those of us who completed our training with our empathy intact, was this the result of a genetic gift or the atmosphere our parents had created at home? I suspect that in most cases our capacity for empathy as physicians was nurtured and enhanced by the role models we encountered during our training. The mentors we most revered were those who had already been through the annealing process of medical school and specialty training and become even more skilled at caring than when they left college. It is an intangible that can’t be taught. Sadly, there is no way of guaranteeing that everyone who enters medical school will be exposed to or benefit from even one of these master physicians.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

You learned a lot of things in medical school. But there must have been some things that you unlearned on the way to your degree. For instance, you unlearned that you could catch a cold by playing outside on a cold damp day without your jacket. You unlearned that handling a toad would give you warts.

©KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The authors of a recent study suggest that over your 4 years in medical school you also unlearned how to be empathetic (“Does Empathy Decline in the Clinical Phase of Medical Education? A Nationwide, Multi-institutional, Cross-Sectional Study of Students at DO-Granting Medical Schools,” Acad Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003175). The researchers surveyed more than 10,000 medical students at nearly 50 DO-granting medical schools using standardized questionnaire called the Jefferson Scale of Empathy. They discovered that the students in the clinical phase (years 3 and 4) had lower “empathy scores” than the students in the preclinical phase of their education (years 1 and 2). This decline was statistically significant but “negligible” in magnitude. One wonders why they even chose to publish their results, particularly when the number of respondents to the web-based survey declined with each successive year in medical school. Having looked at the a sample of some of the questions being asked, I can understand why third- and fourth-year students couldn’t be bothered to respond. They were too busy to answer a few dozen “lame” questions.

There may be a decline in empathy over the course our medical training, but I’m not sure that this study can speak to it. An older study found that although medical students scores on a self-administered scale declined between the second and third year, the observed empathetic behavior actually increased. If I had to choose, I would lean more heavily on the results of the behavioral observations.

Certainly, we all changed over the course of our medical education. Including postgraduate training, it may have lasted a decade or more. We saw hundreds of patients, observed life and death on a scale and with an intensity that most of us previously had never experienced. Our perspective changed from being a naive observer to playing the role of an active participant. Did that change include a decline in our capacity for empathy?

Something had to change. We found quickly that we didn’t have the time or emotional energy to learn as much about the person hiding behind every complaint as we once thought we should. We had to cut corners. Sometimes we cut too many. On the other hand, as we saw more patients we may have learned more efficient ways of discovering what we needed to know about them to become an effective and caring physician. If we found ourselves in a specialty in which patients have a high mortality, we were forced to learn ways of protecting ourselves from the emotional damage.

What would you call this process? Was it empathy erosion? Was it a hardening or toughening? Or was it simply maturation? Whatever term you use, it was an obligatory process if we hoped to survive. However, not all of us have done it well. Some of us have narrowed our focus to see only the complaint and the diagnosis, and we too often fail to see the human hiding in plain sight.

For those of us who completed our training with our empathy intact, was this the result of a genetic gift or the atmosphere our parents had created at home? I suspect that in most cases our capacity for empathy as physicians was nurtured and enhanced by the role models we encountered during our training. The mentors we most revered were those who had already been through the annealing process of medical school and specialty training and become even more skilled at caring than when they left college. It is an intangible that can’t be taught. Sadly, there is no way of guaranteeing that everyone who enters medical school will be exposed to or benefit from even one of these master physicians.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

You learned a lot of things in medical school. But there must have been some things that you unlearned on the way to your degree. For instance, you unlearned that you could catch a cold by playing outside on a cold damp day without your jacket. You unlearned that handling a toad would give you warts.

©KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The authors of a recent study suggest that over your 4 years in medical school you also unlearned how to be empathetic (“Does Empathy Decline in the Clinical Phase of Medical Education? A Nationwide, Multi-institutional, Cross-Sectional Study of Students at DO-Granting Medical Schools,” Acad Med. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003175). The researchers surveyed more than 10,000 medical students at nearly 50 DO-granting medical schools using standardized questionnaire called the Jefferson Scale of Empathy. They discovered that the students in the clinical phase (years 3 and 4) had lower “empathy scores” than the students in the preclinical phase of their education (years 1 and 2). This decline was statistically significant but “negligible” in magnitude. One wonders why they even chose to publish their results, particularly when the number of respondents to the web-based survey declined with each successive year in medical school. Having looked at the a sample of some of the questions being asked, I can understand why third- and fourth-year students couldn’t be bothered to respond. They were too busy to answer a few dozen “lame” questions.

There may be a decline in empathy over the course our medical training, but I’m not sure that this study can speak to it. An older study found that although medical students scores on a self-administered scale declined between the second and third year, the observed empathetic behavior actually increased. If I had to choose, I would lean more heavily on the results of the behavioral observations.

Certainly, we all changed over the course of our medical education. Including postgraduate training, it may have lasted a decade or more. We saw hundreds of patients, observed life and death on a scale and with an intensity that most of us previously had never experienced. Our perspective changed from being a naive observer to playing the role of an active participant. Did that change include a decline in our capacity for empathy?

Something had to change. We found quickly that we didn’t have the time or emotional energy to learn as much about the person hiding behind every complaint as we once thought we should. We had to cut corners. Sometimes we cut too many. On the other hand, as we saw more patients we may have learned more efficient ways of discovering what we needed to know about them to become an effective and caring physician. If we found ourselves in a specialty in which patients have a high mortality, we were forced to learn ways of protecting ourselves from the emotional damage.

What would you call this process? Was it empathy erosion? Was it a hardening or toughening? Or was it simply maturation? Whatever term you use, it was an obligatory process if we hoped to survive. However, not all of us have done it well. Some of us have narrowed our focus to see only the complaint and the diagnosis, and we too often fail to see the human hiding in plain sight.

For those of us who completed our training with our empathy intact, was this the result of a genetic gift or the atmosphere our parents had created at home? I suspect that in most cases our capacity for empathy as physicians was nurtured and enhanced by the role models we encountered during our training. The mentors we most revered were those who had already been through the annealing process of medical school and specialty training and become even more skilled at caring than when they left college. It is an intangible that can’t be taught. Sadly, there is no way of guaranteeing that everyone who enters medical school will be exposed to or benefit from even one of these master physicians.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

A 17% surge in mortality from fall-related traumatic brain injuries from 2008 to 2017 was driven largely by increases among those aged 75 years and older, according to investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, the rate of deaths from traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) caused by unintentional falls rose from 3.86 per 100,000 population in 2008 to 4.52 per 100,000 in 2017, as the number of deaths went from 12,311 to 17,408, said Alexis B. Peterson, PhD, and Scott R. Kegler, PhD, of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control in Atlanta.

“This increase might be explained by longer survival following the onset of common diseases such as stroke, cancer, and heart disease or be attributable to the increasing population of older adults in the United States,” they suggested in the Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report.

The rate of fall-related TBI among Americans aged 75 years and older increased by an average of 2.6% per year from 2008 to 2017, compared with 1.8% in those aged 55-74. Over that same time, death rates dropped for those aged 35-44 (–0.3%), 18-34 (–1.1%), and 0-17 (–4.3%), they said, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System’s multiple cause-of-death database.

The death rate increased fastest in residents of rural areas (2.9% per year), but deaths from fall-related TBI were up at all levels of urbanization. The largest central cities and fringe metro areas were up by 1.4% a year, with larger annual increases seen in medium-size cities (2.1%), small cities (2.2%), and small towns (2.1%), Dr. Peterson and Dr. Kegler said.

Rates of TBI-related mortality in general are higher in rural areas, they noted, and “heterogeneity in the availability and accessibility of resources (e.g., access to high-level trauma centers and rehabilitative services) can result in disparities in postinjury outcomes.”

State-specific rates increased in 45 states, although Alaska was excluded from the analysis because of its small number of cases (less than 20). Increases were significant in 29 states, but none of the changes were significant in the 4 states with lower rates at the end of the study period, the investigators reported.

“In older adults, evidence-based fall prevention strategies can prevent falls and avert costly medical expenditures,” Dr. Peterson and Dr. Kegler said, suggesting that health care providers “consider prescribing exercises that incorporate balance, strength and gait activities, such as tai chi, and reviewing and managing medications linked to falls.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Peterson AB, Kegler SR. MMWR. 2019 Mar 6;69(9):225-30.

A 17% surge in mortality from fall-related traumatic brain injuries from 2008 to 2017 was driven largely by increases among those aged 75 years and older, according to investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, the rate of deaths from traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) caused by unintentional falls rose from 3.86 per 100,000 population in 2008 to 4.52 per 100,000 in 2017, as the number of deaths went from 12,311 to 17,408, said Alexis B. Peterson, PhD, and Scott R. Kegler, PhD, of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control in Atlanta.

“This increase might be explained by longer survival following the onset of common diseases such as stroke, cancer, and heart disease or be attributable to the increasing population of older adults in the United States,” they suggested in the Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report.

The rate of fall-related TBI among Americans aged 75 years and older increased by an average of 2.6% per year from 2008 to 2017, compared with 1.8% in those aged 55-74. Over that same time, death rates dropped for those aged 35-44 (–0.3%), 18-34 (–1.1%), and 0-17 (–4.3%), they said, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System’s multiple cause-of-death database.

The death rate increased fastest in residents of rural areas (2.9% per year), but deaths from fall-related TBI were up at all levels of urbanization. The largest central cities and fringe metro areas were up by 1.4% a year, with larger annual increases seen in medium-size cities (2.1%), small cities (2.2%), and small towns (2.1%), Dr. Peterson and Dr. Kegler said.

Rates of TBI-related mortality in general are higher in rural areas, they noted, and “heterogeneity in the availability and accessibility of resources (e.g., access to high-level trauma centers and rehabilitative services) can result in disparities in postinjury outcomes.”

State-specific rates increased in 45 states, although Alaska was excluded from the analysis because of its small number of cases (less than 20). Increases were significant in 29 states, but none of the changes were significant in the 4 states with lower rates at the end of the study period, the investigators reported.

“In older adults, evidence-based fall prevention strategies can prevent falls and avert costly medical expenditures,” Dr. Peterson and Dr. Kegler said, suggesting that health care providers “consider prescribing exercises that incorporate balance, strength and gait activities, such as tai chi, and reviewing and managing medications linked to falls.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Peterson AB, Kegler SR. MMWR. 2019 Mar 6;69(9):225-30.

A 17% surge in mortality from fall-related traumatic brain injuries from 2008 to 2017 was driven largely by increases among those aged 75 years and older, according to investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, the rate of deaths from traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) caused by unintentional falls rose from 3.86 per 100,000 population in 2008 to 4.52 per 100,000 in 2017, as the number of deaths went from 12,311 to 17,408, said Alexis B. Peterson, PhD, and Scott R. Kegler, PhD, of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control in Atlanta.

“This increase might be explained by longer survival following the onset of common diseases such as stroke, cancer, and heart disease or be attributable to the increasing population of older adults in the United States,” they suggested in the Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report.

The rate of fall-related TBI among Americans aged 75 years and older increased by an average of 2.6% per year from 2008 to 2017, compared with 1.8% in those aged 55-74. Over that same time, death rates dropped for those aged 35-44 (–0.3%), 18-34 (–1.1%), and 0-17 (–4.3%), they said, based on data from the National Vital Statistics System’s multiple cause-of-death database.

The death rate increased fastest in residents of rural areas (2.9% per year), but deaths from fall-related TBI were up at all levels of urbanization. The largest central cities and fringe metro areas were up by 1.4% a year, with larger annual increases seen in medium-size cities (2.1%), small cities (2.2%), and small towns (2.1%), Dr. Peterson and Dr. Kegler said.

Rates of TBI-related mortality in general are higher in rural areas, they noted, and “heterogeneity in the availability and accessibility of resources (e.g., access to high-level trauma centers and rehabilitative services) can result in disparities in postinjury outcomes.”

State-specific rates increased in 45 states, although Alaska was excluded from the analysis because of its small number of cases (less than 20). Increases were significant in 29 states, but none of the changes were significant in the 4 states with lower rates at the end of the study period, the investigators reported.

“In older adults, evidence-based fall prevention strategies can prevent falls and avert costly medical expenditures,” Dr. Peterson and Dr. Kegler said, suggesting that health care providers “consider prescribing exercises that incorporate balance, strength and gait activities, such as tai chi, and reviewing and managing medications linked to falls.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Peterson AB, Kegler SR. MMWR. 2019 Mar 6;69(9):225-30.

Adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy has good efficacy and acceptable safety in patients with locally advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) and should therefore be a new standard of care, according to investigators from the POUT trial.

The risk of disease-free survival events was reduced by more than half for patients who started platinum-based chemotherapy within 90 days after nephroureterectomy, compared with counterparts who simply received surveillance. The treatment was generally well tolerated, with adverse events as expected for this regimen and only a transient impact on quality of life.

Alison Birtle, MD, of Lancashire Teaching Hospitals National Health Services Foundation Trust in Preston, England, and colleagues conducted this trial and reported the results in the Lancet.

“Urothelial carcinomas of the upper urinary tract … are rare, with poorer stage-for-stage prognosis than urothelial carcinomas of the urinary bladder,” the investigators wrote. “No international consensus exists on the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with UTUCs after nephroureterectomy with curative intent.”

With this in mind, the investigators conducted the phase 3 POUT trial (NCT01993979), which is the largest trial to report outcomes exclusively in patients with UTUC. The trial included 261 patients with UTUC (transitional cell carcinoma of the ureter or renal pelvis) that was locally advanced at either pT2-T4 pN0-N3 M0 stage or pTany N1-3 M0 stage.

Patients were randomized to chemotherapy (n = 132) or surveillance (n = 129). Patients in the chemotherapy arm received four 21-day cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or, when renal function was impaired, carboplatin.

With a median follow-up of 30.3 months, patients who received chemotherapy had a lower risk of disease recurrence or death, relative to counterparts who received only surveillance (hazard ratio, 0.45; P = .0001), with similar benefit across subgroups. The estimated 3-year disease-free survival rate was 71% in the chemotherapy arm and 46% in the surveillance arm. The median disease-free survival was 29.8 months and not reached, respectively.

The chemotherapy group also had a lower risk of metastasis or death when compared with the surveillance group (HR, 0.48; P = .0007). The 3-year event-free rates were 71% and 53%, respectively. Overall survival data are not yet mature.

“We acknowledge that disease-free survival is not regarded as a fully validated surrogate of overall survival after nephroureterectomy for UTUC,” the investigators wrote. “However, in a rare disease such as UTUC, a suitably powered trial with overall survival as the primary endpoint was not judged feasible. Although mature survival data (as a secondary endpoint) are not yet available, the large improvement in disease-free survival we noted for the primary endpoint, together with improved metastasis-free survival recorded as a secondary endpoint, strongly suggest that patients have better outcomes with chemotherapy than without.”

The incidence of acute grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events was 44% in the chemotherapy arm and 4% in the surveillance arm (P less than .0001). Quality of life was worse for the chemotherapy arm at 3 months (P = .0028), but that was no longer the case at 12 months (P = .20). There were no treatment-related deaths.

“[A]djuvant platinum-based chemotherapy should be adopted as a new standard of care for patients with locally advanced UTUC for whom systemic chemotherapy is not contraindicated,” the investigators recommended. “This regimen should be routinely considered for all patients in this population, and future studies should focus on combinations with novel agents in the adjuvant setting, which might further improve the prognosis for locally advanced UTUC.”

The trial was funded by Cancer Research UK. The authors disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Birtle A et al. Lancet. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30415-3.

Adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy has good efficacy and acceptable safety in patients with locally advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) and should therefore be a new standard of care, according to investigators from the POUT trial.

The risk of disease-free survival events was reduced by more than half for patients who started platinum-based chemotherapy within 90 days after nephroureterectomy, compared with counterparts who simply received surveillance. The treatment was generally well tolerated, with adverse events as expected for this regimen and only a transient impact on quality of life.

Alison Birtle, MD, of Lancashire Teaching Hospitals National Health Services Foundation Trust in Preston, England, and colleagues conducted this trial and reported the results in the Lancet.

“Urothelial carcinomas of the upper urinary tract … are rare, with poorer stage-for-stage prognosis than urothelial carcinomas of the urinary bladder,” the investigators wrote. “No international consensus exists on the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with UTUCs after nephroureterectomy with curative intent.”

With this in mind, the investigators conducted the phase 3 POUT trial (NCT01993979), which is the largest trial to report outcomes exclusively in patients with UTUC. The trial included 261 patients with UTUC (transitional cell carcinoma of the ureter or renal pelvis) that was locally advanced at either pT2-T4 pN0-N3 M0 stage or pTany N1-3 M0 stage.

Patients were randomized to chemotherapy (n = 132) or surveillance (n = 129). Patients in the chemotherapy arm received four 21-day cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or, when renal function was impaired, carboplatin.

With a median follow-up of 30.3 months, patients who received chemotherapy had a lower risk of disease recurrence or death, relative to counterparts who received only surveillance (hazard ratio, 0.45; P = .0001), with similar benefit across subgroups. The estimated 3-year disease-free survival rate was 71% in the chemotherapy arm and 46% in the surveillance arm. The median disease-free survival was 29.8 months and not reached, respectively.

The chemotherapy group also had a lower risk of metastasis or death when compared with the surveillance group (HR, 0.48; P = .0007). The 3-year event-free rates were 71% and 53%, respectively. Overall survival data are not yet mature.

“We acknowledge that disease-free survival is not regarded as a fully validated surrogate of overall survival after nephroureterectomy for UTUC,” the investigators wrote. “However, in a rare disease such as UTUC, a suitably powered trial with overall survival as the primary endpoint was not judged feasible. Although mature survival data (as a secondary endpoint) are not yet available, the large improvement in disease-free survival we noted for the primary endpoint, together with improved metastasis-free survival recorded as a secondary endpoint, strongly suggest that patients have better outcomes with chemotherapy than without.”

The incidence of acute grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events was 44% in the chemotherapy arm and 4% in the surveillance arm (P less than .0001). Quality of life was worse for the chemotherapy arm at 3 months (P = .0028), but that was no longer the case at 12 months (P = .20). There were no treatment-related deaths.

“[A]djuvant platinum-based chemotherapy should be adopted as a new standard of care for patients with locally advanced UTUC for whom systemic chemotherapy is not contraindicated,” the investigators recommended. “This regimen should be routinely considered for all patients in this population, and future studies should focus on combinations with novel agents in the adjuvant setting, which might further improve the prognosis for locally advanced UTUC.”

The trial was funded by Cancer Research UK. The authors disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Birtle A et al. Lancet. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30415-3.

Adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy has good efficacy and acceptable safety in patients with locally advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) and should therefore be a new standard of care, according to investigators from the POUT trial.

The risk of disease-free survival events was reduced by more than half for patients who started platinum-based chemotherapy within 90 days after nephroureterectomy, compared with counterparts who simply received surveillance. The treatment was generally well tolerated, with adverse events as expected for this regimen and only a transient impact on quality of life.

Alison Birtle, MD, of Lancashire Teaching Hospitals National Health Services Foundation Trust in Preston, England, and colleagues conducted this trial and reported the results in the Lancet.

“Urothelial carcinomas of the upper urinary tract … are rare, with poorer stage-for-stage prognosis than urothelial carcinomas of the urinary bladder,” the investigators wrote. “No international consensus exists on the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with UTUCs after nephroureterectomy with curative intent.”

With this in mind, the investigators conducted the phase 3 POUT trial (NCT01993979), which is the largest trial to report outcomes exclusively in patients with UTUC. The trial included 261 patients with UTUC (transitional cell carcinoma of the ureter or renal pelvis) that was locally advanced at either pT2-T4 pN0-N3 M0 stage or pTany N1-3 M0 stage.

Patients were randomized to chemotherapy (n = 132) or surveillance (n = 129). Patients in the chemotherapy arm received four 21-day cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or, when renal function was impaired, carboplatin.

With a median follow-up of 30.3 months, patients who received chemotherapy had a lower risk of disease recurrence or death, relative to counterparts who received only surveillance (hazard ratio, 0.45; P = .0001), with similar benefit across subgroups. The estimated 3-year disease-free survival rate was 71% in the chemotherapy arm and 46% in the surveillance arm. The median disease-free survival was 29.8 months and not reached, respectively.

The chemotherapy group also had a lower risk of metastasis or death when compared with the surveillance group (HR, 0.48; P = .0007). The 3-year event-free rates were 71% and 53%, respectively. Overall survival data are not yet mature.

“We acknowledge that disease-free survival is not regarded as a fully validated surrogate of overall survival after nephroureterectomy for UTUC,” the investigators wrote. “However, in a rare disease such as UTUC, a suitably powered trial with overall survival as the primary endpoint was not judged feasible. Although mature survival data (as a secondary endpoint) are not yet available, the large improvement in disease-free survival we noted for the primary endpoint, together with improved metastasis-free survival recorded as a secondary endpoint, strongly suggest that patients have better outcomes with chemotherapy than without.”

The incidence of acute grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events was 44% in the chemotherapy arm and 4% in the surveillance arm (P less than .0001). Quality of life was worse for the chemotherapy arm at 3 months (P = .0028), but that was no longer the case at 12 months (P = .20). There were no treatment-related deaths.

“[A]djuvant platinum-based chemotherapy should be adopted as a new standard of care for patients with locally advanced UTUC for whom systemic chemotherapy is not contraindicated,” the investigators recommended. “This regimen should be routinely considered for all patients in this population, and future studies should focus on combinations with novel agents in the adjuvant setting, which might further improve the prognosis for locally advanced UTUC.”

The trial was funded by Cancer Research UK. The authors disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Birtle A et al. Lancet. 2020 Mar 5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30415-3.

The selective neurokinin 3 receptor antagonist fezolinetant was a well tolerated and effective nonhormone therapy for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, Graeme L. Fraser, PhD, of Ogeda, a subsidiary of Astellas Pharma, and associates reported in Menopause.

yacobchuk/Getty Images

The investigators conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, parallel-group study between July 19, 2017, and Sept. 19, 2018, in 287 women who completed the full 12-week trial. The women were aged between 41 and 65 years, were menopausal, and had moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS) with an incidence of at least 50 episodes per week. The majority of the women were white, 25% were black, 1% were Asian, and 1% were “other.”

The reduction in VMS episodes in patients who received fezolinetant ranged from 1.9 to 3.5 episodes per day at week 4 and from 1.8 to 2.6 per day at week 12. The mean difference from placebo in VMS severity score was –0.4 to –1 at week 4 and was –0.2 to –0.6 at week 12. At least a 50% reduction in VMS frequency at week 12 was achieved by 81%-95% of patients who received fezolinetant, compared with 59% of those who received placebo.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild to moderate, with the most common events including nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, urinary tract infection, upper respiratory tract infections, sinusitis, headache, and cough. Of the five severe adverse events reported, only two were considered related to treatment – cholelithiasis and drug-induced liver injury. A total of 21 patients discontinued because of adverse events.

“Further evaluation of fezolinetant in larger and longer phase 3 trials of women with VMS associated with menopause is warranted to more fully characterize its efficacy and safety profile,” Dr. Fraser and colleagues concluded.

The study was funded by Astellas Pharma. The investigators reported numerous conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies.

lfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Fraser GL et al. Menopause. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001510.

The selective neurokinin 3 receptor antagonist fezolinetant was a well tolerated and effective nonhormone therapy for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, Graeme L. Fraser, PhD, of Ogeda, a subsidiary of Astellas Pharma, and associates reported in Menopause.

yacobchuk/Getty Images

The investigators conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, parallel-group study between July 19, 2017, and Sept. 19, 2018, in 287 women who completed the full 12-week trial. The women were aged between 41 and 65 years, were menopausal, and had moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS) with an incidence of at least 50 episodes per week. The majority of the women were white, 25% were black, 1% were Asian, and 1% were “other.”

The reduction in VMS episodes in patients who received fezolinetant ranged from 1.9 to 3.5 episodes per day at week 4 and from 1.8 to 2.6 per day at week 12. The mean difference from placebo in VMS severity score was –0.4 to –1 at week 4 and was –0.2 to –0.6 at week 12. At least a 50% reduction in VMS frequency at week 12 was achieved by 81%-95% of patients who received fezolinetant, compared with 59% of those who received placebo.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild to moderate, with the most common events including nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, urinary tract infection, upper respiratory tract infections, sinusitis, headache, and cough. Of the five severe adverse events reported, only two were considered related to treatment – cholelithiasis and drug-induced liver injury. A total of 21 patients discontinued because of adverse events.

“Further evaluation of fezolinetant in larger and longer phase 3 trials of women with VMS associated with menopause is warranted to more fully characterize its efficacy and safety profile,” Dr. Fraser and colleagues concluded.

The study was funded by Astellas Pharma. The investigators reported numerous conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies.

lfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Fraser GL et al. Menopause. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001510.

The selective neurokinin 3 receptor antagonist fezolinetant was a well tolerated and effective nonhormone therapy for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, Graeme L. Fraser, PhD, of Ogeda, a subsidiary of Astellas Pharma, and associates reported in Menopause.

yacobchuk/Getty Images

The investigators conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, parallel-group study between July 19, 2017, and Sept. 19, 2018, in 287 women who completed the full 12-week trial. The women were aged between 41 and 65 years, were menopausal, and had moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS) with an incidence of at least 50 episodes per week. The majority of the women were white, 25% were black, 1% were Asian, and 1% were “other.”

The reduction in VMS episodes in patients who received fezolinetant ranged from 1.9 to 3.5 episodes per day at week 4 and from 1.8 to 2.6 per day at week 12. The mean difference from placebo in VMS severity score was –0.4 to –1 at week 4 and was –0.2 to –0.6 at week 12. At least a 50% reduction in VMS frequency at week 12 was achieved by 81%-95% of patients who received fezolinetant, compared with 59% of those who received placebo.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild to moderate, with the most common events including nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, urinary tract infection, upper respiratory tract infections, sinusitis, headache, and cough. Of the five severe adverse events reported, only two were considered related to treatment – cholelithiasis and drug-induced liver injury. A total of 21 patients discontinued because of adverse events.

“Further evaluation of fezolinetant in larger and longer phase 3 trials of women with VMS associated with menopause is warranted to more fully characterize its efficacy and safety profile,” Dr. Fraser and colleagues concluded.

The study was funded by Astellas Pharma. The investigators reported numerous conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies.

lfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Fraser GL et al. Menopause. 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001510.

GRAPEVINE, TEXAS – Higher body mass index is not associated with increased morbidity in women undergoing postpartum tubal ligation, according to a study of more than 1,000 patients.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

“Even among patients within the highest BMI category, postpartum sterilization remains a safe and reasonable option,” John J. Byrne, MD, said at the Pregnancy Meeting. Dr. Byrne is affiliated with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Physicians may recommend contraception within 6 weeks of delivery, but many patients do not attend postpartum visits. “One option for women who have completed childbearing is bilateral midsegment salpingectomy via minilaparotomy,” Dr. Byrne said at the Pregnancy Meeting, sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. “Offering this procedure immediately after delivery makes it available to women who face obstacles to follow-up care.”

The procedure entails the risk of anesthetic complications, bowel injury, and vascular injury. Subsequent pregnancy or ectopic pregnancy also may occur. Some centers will not perform the procedure if a patient’s size affects the surgeon’s ability to feel the relevant anatomy, Dr. Byrne said. “Although operative complications are presumed to be higher among obese women,” prior studies have not examined whether BMI affects rates of procedure completion, complication, or subsequent pregnancy, the researchers said.

To study this question, Dr. Byrne and colleagues examined data from women who requested postpartum sterilization following vaginal delivery at their center in 2018. The center uses the Parkland tubal ligation technique. The researchers assessed complication rates using a composite measure that included surgical complications (that is, blood transfusion, aborted procedure, or extension of incision), anesthetic complications, readmission, superficial or deep wound infection, venous thromboembolism, ileus or small bowel obstruction, incomplete transection, and subsequent pregnancy. The investigators used statistical tests to assess the relationship between BMI and morbidity.

In all, 1,014 patients underwent a postpartum tubal ligation; 17% had undergone prior abdominal surgery. The researchers classified patients’ BMI as normal (7% of the population), overweight (28%), class I obesity (38%), class II obesity (18%), or class III obesity (9%). A composite morbidity event occurred in 2%, and the proportion of patients with a complication did not significantly differ across BMI categories. No morbid events occurred in patients with normal BMI, which indicates “minimal risk” in this population, Dr. Byrne said. One incomplete transection occurred in a patient with class I obesity, and one subsequent pregnancy occurred in a patient with class II obesity. Estimated blood loss ranged from 9 mL in patients with normal BMI to 13 mL in patients with class III obesity, and length of surgery ranged from 32 minutes to 40 minutes. Neither difference is clinically significant, Dr. Byrne said.

“For the woman who desires permanent contraception, BMI should not impede her access to the procedure,” he noted.

The researchers had no relevant disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Byrne JJ et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;222(1):S290, Abstract 442.

GRAPEVINE, TEXAS – Higher body mass index is not associated with increased morbidity in women undergoing postpartum tubal ligation, according to a study of more than 1,000 patients.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

“Even among patients within the highest BMI category, postpartum sterilization remains a safe and reasonable option,” John J. Byrne, MD, said at the Pregnancy Meeting. Dr. Byrne is affiliated with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Physicians may recommend contraception within 6 weeks of delivery, but many patients do not attend postpartum visits. “One option for women who have completed childbearing is bilateral midsegment salpingectomy via minilaparotomy,” Dr. Byrne said at the Pregnancy Meeting, sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. “Offering this procedure immediately after delivery makes it available to women who face obstacles to follow-up care.”

The procedure entails the risk of anesthetic complications, bowel injury, and vascular injury. Subsequent pregnancy or ectopic pregnancy also may occur. Some centers will not perform the procedure if a patient’s size affects the surgeon’s ability to feel the relevant anatomy, Dr. Byrne said. “Although operative complications are presumed to be higher among obese women,” prior studies have not examined whether BMI affects rates of procedure completion, complication, or subsequent pregnancy, the researchers said.

To study this question, Dr. Byrne and colleagues examined data from women who requested postpartum sterilization following vaginal delivery at their center in 2018. The center uses the Parkland tubal ligation technique. The researchers assessed complication rates using a composite measure that included surgical complications (that is, blood transfusion, aborted procedure, or extension of incision), anesthetic complications, readmission, superficial or deep wound infection, venous thromboembolism, ileus or small bowel obstruction, incomplete transection, and subsequent pregnancy. The investigators used statistical tests to assess the relationship between BMI and morbidity.

In all, 1,014 patients underwent a postpartum tubal ligation; 17% had undergone prior abdominal surgery. The researchers classified patients’ BMI as normal (7% of the population), overweight (28%), class I obesity (38%), class II obesity (18%), or class III obesity (9%). A composite morbidity event occurred in 2%, and the proportion of patients with a complication did not significantly differ across BMI categories. No morbid events occurred in patients with normal BMI, which indicates “minimal risk” in this population, Dr. Byrne said. One incomplete transection occurred in a patient with class I obesity, and one subsequent pregnancy occurred in a patient with class II obesity. Estimated blood loss ranged from 9 mL in patients with normal BMI to 13 mL in patients with class III obesity, and length of surgery ranged from 32 minutes to 40 minutes. Neither difference is clinically significant, Dr. Byrne said.

“For the woman who desires permanent contraception, BMI should not impede her access to the procedure,” he noted.

The researchers had no relevant disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Byrne JJ et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;222(1):S290, Abstract 442.

GRAPEVINE, TEXAS – Higher body mass index is not associated with increased morbidity in women undergoing postpartum tubal ligation, according to a study of more than 1,000 patients.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

“Even among patients within the highest BMI category, postpartum sterilization remains a safe and reasonable option,” John J. Byrne, MD, said at the Pregnancy Meeting. Dr. Byrne is affiliated with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Physicians may recommend contraception within 6 weeks of delivery, but many patients do not attend postpartum visits. “One option for women who have completed childbearing is bilateral midsegment salpingectomy via minilaparotomy,” Dr. Byrne said at the Pregnancy Meeting, sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. “Offering this procedure immediately after delivery makes it available to women who face obstacles to follow-up care.”

The procedure entails the risk of anesthetic complications, bowel injury, and vascular injury. Subsequent pregnancy or ectopic pregnancy also may occur. Some centers will not perform the procedure if a patient’s size affects the surgeon’s ability to feel the relevant anatomy, Dr. Byrne said. “Although operative complications are presumed to be higher among obese women,” prior studies have not examined whether BMI affects rates of procedure completion, complication, or subsequent pregnancy, the researchers said.

To study this question, Dr. Byrne and colleagues examined data from women who requested postpartum sterilization following vaginal delivery at their center in 2018. The center uses the Parkland tubal ligation technique. The researchers assessed complication rates using a composite measure that included surgical complications (that is, blood transfusion, aborted procedure, or extension of incision), anesthetic complications, readmission, superficial or deep wound infection, venous thromboembolism, ileus or small bowel obstruction, incomplete transection, and subsequent pregnancy. The investigators used statistical tests to assess the relationship between BMI and morbidity.

In all, 1,014 patients underwent a postpartum tubal ligation; 17% had undergone prior abdominal surgery. The researchers classified patients’ BMI as normal (7% of the population), overweight (28%), class I obesity (38%), class II obesity (18%), or class III obesity (9%). A composite morbidity event occurred in 2%, and the proportion of patients with a complication did not significantly differ across BMI categories. No morbid events occurred in patients with normal BMI, which indicates “minimal risk” in this population, Dr. Byrne said. One incomplete transection occurred in a patient with class I obesity, and one subsequent pregnancy occurred in a patient with class II obesity. Estimated blood loss ranged from 9 mL in patients with normal BMI to 13 mL in patients with class III obesity, and length of surgery ranged from 32 minutes to 40 minutes. Neither difference is clinically significant, Dr. Byrne said.

“For the woman who desires permanent contraception, BMI should not impede her access to the procedure,” he noted.

The researchers had no relevant disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Byrne JJ et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;222(1):S290, Abstract 442.

When she was 4 months pregnant, Angela Crawley waited for 30 minutes in a private room to hear the results of her noninvasive prenatal testing. Her ultrasound had been flagged as high risk by the radiologist and she agreed to undergo further testing to gather information on the health of her unborn child.

As she waited for her genetic counseling appointment, she noticed somber expressions on the faces of her health team and picked up on hushed tones.

It had taken 2 years to become pregnant and the joy she felt attending prenatal care appointments was fading into a sense of dread as she sat in that small room and the minutes ticked by.

Crawley – a scientist in the chronic disease program at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, assistant professor at the University of Ottawa, and adjunct research professor at Carleton University in Ontario, Canada – is more qualified than most patients to absorb health information and make appropriate decisions.

And yet, “I was completely unprepared,” she told Medscape Medical News as she reflected on what she now refers to as some of the darkest days of her life. “It was a nightmare and it was such a confusing, scary time.”

Crawley is among the more than 6 million women from at least 90 countries who have undergone noninvasive prenatal testing. During pregnancy, a mother’s bloodstream contains a mix of cell-free DNA from her own cells and from placental cells, which is usually identical to the DNA of the fetus. Analysis of cell-free DNA can lead to the early detection of genetic disorders.

Testing is most often used to look for chromosomal disorders that are caused by the presence of an extra chromosome, like in trisomy 21 in the case of Down syndrome or extra or missing copies of the X and Y chromosomes in other disorders. The accuracy of the test tends to vary, depending on the condition being assessed.

Cell-free DNA testing has reduced the number of invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures, some of which can lead to miscarriage, and this noninvasive option made sense to Crawley and was covered by government health insurance.

With a market projected to surpass $13 billion by the year 2027, some experts speculate that prenatal genetic testing is the most rapidly adopted test in human history. Globally, noninvasive prenatal tests cost $500 to $3,000 for patients who pay out of pocket, and all those screening options are amassing valuable genetic data troves.

The pioneer of noninvasive prenatal testing, Dennis Lo, PhD, from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, told Medscape Medical News that the success of using cell-free DNA came after a long, winding road of rejected grant applications and scientific skepticism.

“Initially, people did not think this would be useful for assessing chromosomal abnormalities because the thinking at the time was that we would need to count them,” Lo said.

But he was enchanted by early glimpses of the capability of cell-free DNA, and felt driven to pursue unconventional research ideas even though there were significant hurdles to overcome in the lab.

“We were detecting fetal Y chromosomes in women. At first, it was just scientific curiosity,” said Lo. “At the time, people worried that fetal cells would persist from one pregnancy to the next, but we discovered that fetal DNA actually clears very quickly and does not progress into the next pregnancy,” he explained. “This is very important because it won’t alter the accuracy of the test.”

Gripped by the scientific mystery, the researcher put in long hours at the lab. “I’m fortunate I have a very understanding wife who is herself a scientist,” he said. After a particularly long stretch without quality time together, Lo and his spouse, Alice Wong, went to see a Harry Potter movie.

As Lo viewed the Harry Potter H through 3D glasses, he was suddenly reminded of the male human karyotype.

“I saw the vertical stripes of the H and it hit me,” he told Medscape Medical News. “There are two sets of chromosomes.” The average human karyotype contains 22 pairs of autosomal chromosomes and one pair of sex chromosomes.

“Our complex genetic conundrum was cracked in the middle of a Harry Potter movie in a moment when I felt completely relaxed,” he recalled. “My wife said: ‘You can’t even watch a movie properly.’ ”

Back at the lab, Lo shared his Harry Potter–inspired concept and the team got to work.

In December 2019, Lo received the Fudan-Zhongzhi Science Award in Shanghai from Nobel laureate physicist Samuel Chao Chung Ting, chair of the award committee. The prize honors fundamental and groundbreaking achievements in biomedicine, and the laureate receives ¥3 million (about U.S. $428,550), donated by Zhongzhi Enterprise Group.

This honor was 30 years in the making, Lo told Medscape Medical News. “I’m pleased to experience public recognition and this is a high honor in China,” he added.

“Noninvasive prenatal testing is better than anything we’ve ever had before,” said Ronald Wapner, MD, from the Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, who taught a course on the transition of prenatal diagnostics from amniocentesis to whole-genome sequencing at the recent Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine 2020 Annual Pregnancy Meeting.

“We now have the capability to improve healthcare decision-making in utero and at birth,” he told Medscape Medical News. “It’s remarkable.”

But, Wapner said, the market grew too fast. “The National Institutes of Health didn’t even play a role in these fast-paced developments. Traditional governing bodies and authorities were bypassed as cytogenetic labs marketed directly to physicians and patients,” he explained.

One of the major problems with the rapid uptake in testing is a lack of preparation for patients like Crawley.

The clinician who delivered her test results was not feeling well, so “she spoke through a surgical mask,” Crawley reported. “I was trying to understand what she was saying, but it was an uncomfortable exchange.”

Crawley had undergone prenatal genetic testing because her ultrasound had shown irregularities in fetal leg measurements. The genetic tests confirmed no anomalies in the chromosome count, but that was it.

“There was no prognosis, just vague numbers that no one seemed to know what to do with,” Crawley recalled.

With concern about growth measurements, the conversation moved quickly to options, including termination. Crawley said the dialogue felt jarring and moved too quickly for her to process all the information and possible courses of action.

She was told she could terminate and “try again to get pregnant.” But Crawley was 39 years old and had been trying to conceive for 2 years.

“It was devastating,” she said. “No one sat down with me before this appointment to learn about my values or preferences, and I left that conversation with more questions than I had before I arrived. I went home and had one the worst weekends of my life. My husband and I felt so overwhelmed, grieved, and alone.”

Pretest counseling can be as important as any subsequent genetic counseling, said Blair Stevens, a prenatal expert from the National Society of Genetic Counselors and a genetic counselor at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston.

“Information is valuable, but it can also be toxic, depending on what individuals intend to do with what they learn,” she explained. “We cannot unknow or unhear details, so it’s really important to work with patients in advance to make sure their preferences guide any planning.”

Uncertainty can be very unsettling, she acknowledged. “It’s important to help patients balance any ambiguity, so if there is a 20% risk, there is also an 80% chance of another, perhaps more favorable, outcome.”

Most clinicians don’t have the time to fully assess patient goals and align counseling approaches to individual needs, Stevens explained. And public interest in prenatal testing has outpaced clinical best practices as competing labs race to expand offerings and add options to screening tests to grab a piece of the global market, which is now about 130 million births per year.

“These are not scientifically sound additions and we need more evidence,” Stevens said. “There is a right way to handle this, and labs and clinicians need to collaborate on responsible methods to test and integrate expanding options.”
 

The blue and pink elephant in the room

“The reality is that most people don’t have a super high risk for chromosomal irregularities,” said Stevens. “Most people are more interested in learning the sex of their baby in early pregnancy than in any actual desire for genetic information.” Noninvasive prenatal testing can detect fetal sex as early as 9 weeks into a pregnancy, whereas ultrasound might not detect it until about 18 weeks.

“Honestly? I think the growing popularity of gender-reveal parties is what is actually driving the push for more prenatal testing,” she added. “The problem is that a couple eager to learn the sex of their baby may wind up with way more information than they expected and have trouble processing unanticipated risk.”

In February, five national medical organizations in the United States partnered with the Reproductive Genetics Technology Consortium to develop consensus recommendations and guidelines for prenatal genetic testing.

The National Society of Genetic Counselors and the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine are among the new members that will provide a forum through which commercial laboratories can communicate about new technologies and obtain input and guidance on emerging options.

Wapner, who is a member of the consortium, said he hopes thought leaders will be at the forefront to guide this next chapter of prenatal screening. “So much money is pouring into all this testing; let’s make sure we are making the right, most essential screening decisions,” he said.

“Science typically advances more rapidly than the ethical and legal framework to support decision-making, and it’s important for society to put protections in place,” Lo acknowledged.

The misuse of screening and unethical sex-selection efforts in Asia and elsewhere in the world, where males are highly valued and females are more likely to be aborted, is dismaying, he told Medscape Medical News. “These are exploitations of the science.”

In addition to scientific misuse like sex selection, data breaches are becoming a huge concern as companies amass large amounts of valuable genetic information.
 

Data for ransom

In Canada, where Crawley took her test, LifeLabs – the country’s largest laboratory testing company and a provider of genetic testing – paid a ransom after a major cyberattack led to the theft of lab results for 85,000 people in Ontario and the personal information of 15 million customers.

LifeLabs paid an undisclosed sum to retrieve the data, the company reported on December 17, and hired cybersecurity experts to assess the damage. The company is offering security protection services, including identity theft and fraud protection insurance, to customers.

“This has served as a reminder that we need to stay ahead of cybercrime, which has become a pervasive issue around the world in all sectors,” Charles Brown, president and chief executive officer of LifeLabs, wrote in a letter to customers. “You entrust us with important health information, and we take that responsibility very seriously.”

The United States has led the world in the commercial push for more prenatal testing. Other countries in Europe, for example, have proceeded with caution and have integrated the technologies with more controls. Hong Kong, where the inventor of the test is based, has been among the slowest to adopt the practice.

“I have been lobbying for 8 years for Hong Kong to offer testing,” said Lo. “I think Hong Kong has been too slow to integrate, but the United States probably moved too quickly. There is a balance that I think countries like the Netherlands have found; they take the aim of screening into account, along with justice and societal aspects.”

“Ideally, we will develop a great pretest model triage tool to help guide patients through this process,” Stevens said. “And we have to make sure the data they receive are clinically useful and backed up by evidence to safeguard the care of every patient.”

The practice of medicine is meticulously designed to assess and mitigate risk, “but this sensible objective can also be extremely negative in focus, with not-so-great delivery of information,” she acknowledged. Each individual’s tolerance for uncertainty and ability to cope in the face of adversity varies. “These are complex conversations that require time and empathy, and the details matter,” she added.

“In my home state of Texas, where there is a large religious base, there is not as much drive for advance prenatal genetic information,” Stevens explained. “We see a real advocacy movement emerging and a need for information from patients first because these can’t really be clinician-led decisions,” she pointed out. “Patients come to us undergoing not just the physical changes of pregnancy, but also emotional transformation as they transition to become parents. They may be nauseous or already sleep-deprived and they need our help,” she added.

Crawley could feel the fluttering of fetal movements in her womb and said she felt connected to her child, but she remembered her trip to Ireland when she and her husband drank too much and they likely conceived. Irrational thoughts crept in: “Maybe it was something we did. What about my swimming; could it have been harmful?”

Apprehensions lingered as she waited to meet her specialist. Would the child grow and be able to walk? Be held back by disabling joint pain? Crawley sat down with her doctor at the high-risk clinic to discuss the possibilities.

“I don’t see anything to be alarmed about. She’s probably going to be small,” said the obstetrician.

“She?!” Crawley had opted not to learn the sex of her baby, unlike so many other parents she knew, but her hope for her baby’s good health soared above the accidental disclosure.

“Everything changed in that moment,” Crawley said. “I knew that we were going to be okay no matter what happened next.”

Crawley’s pregnancy progressed to term and she gave birth to a healthy baby girl who is now 3 years old and dances ballet. Her beloved daughter is shorter than some of the other dancers in her class, but her mom says she hasn’t missed a beat. “The world is a better place because my daughter is in it,” Crawley said. “This, I know for sure.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When she was 4 months pregnant, Angela Crawley waited for 30 minutes in a private room to hear the results of her noninvasive prenatal testing. Her ultrasound had been flagged as high risk by the radiologist and she agreed to undergo further testing to gather information on the health of her unborn child.

As she waited for her genetic counseling appointment, she noticed somber expressions on the faces of her health team and picked up on hushed tones.

It had taken 2 years to become pregnant and the joy she felt attending prenatal care appointments was fading into a sense of dread as she sat in that small room and the minutes ticked by.

Crawley – a scientist in the chronic disease program at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, assistant professor at the University of Ottawa, and adjunct research professor at Carleton University in Ontario, Canada – is more qualified than most patients to absorb health information and make appropriate decisions.

And yet, “I was completely unprepared,” she told Medscape Medical News as she reflected on what she now refers to as some of the darkest days of her life. “It was a nightmare and it was such a confusing, scary time.”

Crawley is among the more than 6 million women from at least 90 countries who have undergone noninvasive prenatal testing. During pregnancy, a mother’s bloodstream contains a mix of cell-free DNA from her own cells and from placental cells, which is usually identical to the DNA of the fetus. Analysis of cell-free DNA can lead to the early detection of genetic disorders.

Testing is most often used to look for chromosomal disorders that are caused by the presence of an extra chromosome, like in trisomy 21 in the case of Down syndrome or extra or missing copies of the X and Y chromosomes in other disorders. The accuracy of the test tends to vary, depending on the condition being assessed.

Cell-free DNA testing has reduced the number of invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures, some of which can lead to miscarriage, and this noninvasive option made sense to Crawley and was covered by government health insurance.

With a market projected to surpass $13 billion by the year 2027, some experts speculate that prenatal genetic testing is the most rapidly adopted test in human history. Globally, noninvasive prenatal tests cost $500 to $3,000 for patients who pay out of pocket, and all those screening options are amassing valuable genetic data troves.

The pioneer of noninvasive prenatal testing, Dennis Lo, PhD, from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, told Medscape Medical News that the success of using cell-free DNA came after a long, winding road of rejected grant applications and scientific skepticism.

“Initially, people did not think this would be useful for assessing chromosomal abnormalities because the thinking at the time was that we would need to count them,” Lo said.

But he was enchanted by early glimpses of the capability of cell-free DNA, and felt driven to pursue unconventional research ideas even though there were significant hurdles to overcome in the lab.

“We were detecting fetal Y chromosomes in women. At first, it was just scientific curiosity,” said Lo. “At the time, people worried that fetal cells would persist from one pregnancy to the next, but we discovered that fetal DNA actually clears very quickly and does not progress into the next pregnancy,” he explained. “This is very important because it won’t alter the accuracy of the test.”

Gripped by the scientific mystery, the researcher put in long hours at the lab. “I’m fortunate I have a very understanding wife who is herself a scientist,” he said. After a particularly long stretch without quality time together, Lo and his spouse, Alice Wong, went to see a Harry Potter movie.

As Lo viewed the Harry Potter H through 3D glasses, he was suddenly reminded of the male human karyotype.

“I saw the vertical stripes of the H and it hit me,” he told Medscape Medical News. “There are two sets of chromosomes.” The average human karyotype contains 22 pairs of autosomal chromosomes and one pair of sex chromosomes.

“Our complex genetic conundrum was cracked in the middle of a Harry Potter movie in a moment when I felt completely relaxed,” he recalled. “My wife said: ‘You can’t even watch a movie properly.’ ”

Back at the lab, Lo shared his Harry Potter–inspired concept and the team got to work.

In December 2019, Lo received the Fudan-Zhongzhi Science Award in Shanghai from Nobel laureate physicist Samuel Chao Chung Ting, chair of the award committee. The prize honors fundamental and groundbreaking achievements in biomedicine, and the laureate receives ¥3 million (about U.S. $428,550), donated by Zhongzhi Enterprise Group.

This honor was 30 years in the making, Lo told Medscape Medical News. “I’m pleased to experience public recognition and this is a high honor in China,” he added.

“Noninvasive prenatal testing is better than anything we’ve ever had before,” said Ronald Wapner, MD, from the Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, who taught a course on the transition of prenatal diagnostics from amniocentesis to whole-genome sequencing at the recent Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine 2020 Annual Pregnancy Meeting.

“We now have the capability to improve healthcare decision-making in utero and at birth,” he told Medscape Medical News. “It’s remarkable.”

But, Wapner said, the market grew too fast. “The National Institutes of Health didn’t even play a role in these fast-paced developments. Traditional governing bodies and authorities were bypassed as cytogenetic labs marketed directly to physicians and patients,” he explained.

One of the major problems with the rapid uptake in testing is a lack of preparation for patients like Crawley.

The clinician who delivered her test results was not feeling well, so “she spoke through a surgical mask,” Crawley reported. “I was trying to understand what she was saying, but it was an uncomfortable exchange.”

Crawley had undergone prenatal genetic testing because her ultrasound had shown irregularities in fetal leg measurements. The genetic tests confirmed no anomalies in the chromosome count, but that was it.

“There was no prognosis, just vague numbers that no one seemed to know what to do with,” Crawley recalled.

With concern about growth measurements, the conversation moved quickly to options, including termination. Crawley said the dialogue felt jarring and moved too quickly for her to process all the information and possible courses of action.

She was told she could terminate and “try again to get pregnant.” But Crawley was 39 years old and had been trying to conceive for 2 years.

“It was devastating,” she said. “No one sat down with me before this appointment to learn about my values or preferences, and I left that conversation with more questions than I had before I arrived. I went home and had one the worst weekends of my life. My husband and I felt so overwhelmed, grieved, and alone.”

Pretest counseling can be as important as any subsequent genetic counseling, said Blair Stevens, a prenatal expert from the National Society of Genetic Counselors and a genetic counselor at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston.

“Information is valuable, but it can also be toxic, depending on what individuals intend to do with what they learn,” she explained. “We cannot unknow or unhear details, so it’s really important to work with patients in advance to make sure their preferences guide any planning.”

Uncertainty can be very unsettling, she acknowledged. “It’s important to help patients balance any ambiguity, so if there is a 20% risk, there is also an 80% chance of another, perhaps more favorable, outcome.”

Most clinicians don’t have the time to fully assess patient goals and align counseling approaches to individual needs, Stevens explained. And public interest in prenatal testing has outpaced clinical best practices as competing labs race to expand offerings and add options to screening tests to grab a piece of the global market, which is now about 130 million births per year.

“These are not scientifically sound additions and we need more evidence,” Stevens said. “There is a right way to handle this, and labs and clinicians need to collaborate on responsible methods to test and integrate expanding options.”
 

The blue and pink elephant in the room

“The reality is that most people don’t have a super high risk for chromosomal irregularities,” said Stevens. “Most people are more interested in learning the sex of their baby in early pregnancy than in any actual desire for genetic information.” Noninvasive prenatal testing can detect fetal sex as early as 9 weeks into a pregnancy, whereas ultrasound might not detect it until about 18 weeks.

“Honestly? I think the growing popularity of gender-reveal parties is what is actually driving the push for more prenatal testing,” she added. “The problem is that a couple eager to learn the sex of their baby may wind up with way more information than they expected and have trouble processing unanticipated risk.”

In February, five national medical organizations in the United States partnered with the Reproductive Genetics Technology Consortium to develop consensus recommendations and guidelines for prenatal genetic testing.

The National Society of Genetic Counselors and the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine are among the new members that will provide a forum through which commercial laboratories can communicate about new technologies and obtain input and guidance on emerging options.

Wapner, who is a member of the consortium, said he hopes thought leaders will be at the forefront to guide this next chapter of prenatal screening. “So much money is pouring into all this testing; let’s make sure we are making the right, most essential screening decisions,” he said.

“Science typically advances more rapidly than the ethical and legal framework to support decision-making, and it’s important for society to put protections in place,” Lo acknowledged.

The misuse of screening and unethical sex-selection efforts in Asia and elsewhere in the world, where males are highly valued and females are more likely to be aborted, is dismaying, he told Medscape Medical News. “These are exploitations of the science.”

In addition to scientific misuse like sex selection, data breaches are becoming a huge concern as companies amass large amounts of valuable genetic information.
 

Data for ransom

In Canada, where Crawley took her test, LifeLabs – the country’s largest laboratory testing company and a provider of genetic testing – paid a ransom after a major cyberattack led to the theft of lab results for 85,000 people in Ontario and the personal information of 15 million customers.

LifeLabs paid an undisclosed sum to retrieve the data, the company reported on December 17, and hired cybersecurity experts to assess the damage. The company is offering security protection services, including identity theft and fraud protection insurance, to customers.

“This has served as a reminder that we need to stay ahead of cybercrime, which has become a pervasive issue around the world in all sectors,” Charles Brown, president and chief executive officer of LifeLabs, wrote in a letter to customers. “You entrust us with important health information, and we take that responsibility very seriously.”

The United States has led the world in the commercial push for more prenatal testing. Other countries in Europe, for example, have proceeded with caution and have integrated the technologies with more controls. Hong Kong, where the inventor of the test is based, has been among the slowest to adopt the practice.

“I have been lobbying for 8 years for Hong Kong to offer testing,” said Lo. “I think Hong Kong has been too slow to integrate, but the United States probably moved too quickly. There is a balance that I think countries like the Netherlands have found; they take the aim of screening into account, along with justice and societal aspects.”

“Ideally, we will develop a great pretest model triage tool to help guide patients through this process,” Stevens said. “And we have to make sure the data they receive are clinically useful and backed up by evidence to safeguard the care of every patient.”

The practice of medicine is meticulously designed to assess and mitigate risk, “but this sensible objective can also be extremely negative in focus, with not-so-great delivery of information,” she acknowledged. Each individual’s tolerance for uncertainty and ability to cope in the face of adversity varies. “These are complex conversations that require time and empathy, and the details matter,” she added.

“In my home state of Texas, where there is a large religious base, there is not as much drive for advance prenatal genetic information,” Stevens explained. “We see a real advocacy movement emerging and a need for information from patients first because these can’t really be clinician-led decisions,” she pointed out. “Patients come to us undergoing not just the physical changes of pregnancy, but also emotional transformation as they transition to become parents. They may be nauseous or already sleep-deprived and they need our help,” she added.

Crawley could feel the fluttering of fetal movements in her womb and said she felt connected to her child, but she remembered her trip to Ireland when she and her husband drank too much and they likely conceived. Irrational thoughts crept in: “Maybe it was something we did. What about my swimming; could it have been harmful?”

Apprehensions lingered as she waited to meet her specialist. Would the child grow and be able to walk? Be held back by disabling joint pain? Crawley sat down with her doctor at the high-risk clinic to discuss the possibilities.

“I don’t see anything to be alarmed about. She’s probably going to be small,” said the obstetrician.

“She?!” Crawley had opted not to learn the sex of her baby, unlike so many other parents she knew, but her hope for her baby’s good health soared above the accidental disclosure.

“Everything changed in that moment,” Crawley said. “I knew that we were going to be okay no matter what happened next.”

Crawley’s pregnancy progressed to term and she gave birth to a healthy baby girl who is now 3 years old and dances ballet. Her beloved daughter is shorter than some of the other dancers in her class, but her mom says she hasn’t missed a beat. “The world is a better place because my daughter is in it,” Crawley said. “This, I know for sure.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When she was 4 months pregnant, Angela Crawley waited for 30 minutes in a private room to hear the results of her noninvasive prenatal testing. Her ultrasound had been flagged as high risk by the radiologist and she agreed to undergo further testing to gather information on the health of her unborn child.

As she waited for her genetic counseling appointment, she noticed somber expressions on the faces of her health team and picked up on hushed tones.

It had taken 2 years to become pregnant and the joy she felt attending prenatal care appointments was fading into a sense of dread as she sat in that small room and the minutes ticked by.

Crawley – a scientist in the chronic disease program at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, assistant professor at the University of Ottawa, and adjunct research professor at Carleton University in Ontario, Canada – is more qualified than most patients to absorb health information and make appropriate decisions.

And yet, “I was completely unprepared,” she told Medscape Medical News as she reflected on what she now refers to as some of the darkest days of her life. “It was a nightmare and it was such a confusing, scary time.”

Crawley is among the more than 6 million women from at least 90 countries who have undergone noninvasive prenatal testing. During pregnancy, a mother’s bloodstream contains a mix of cell-free DNA from her own cells and from placental cells, which is usually identical to the DNA of the fetus. Analysis of cell-free DNA can lead to the early detection of genetic disorders.

Testing is most often used to look for chromosomal disorders that are caused by the presence of an extra chromosome, like in trisomy 21 in the case of Down syndrome or extra or missing copies of the X and Y chromosomes in other disorders. The accuracy of the test tends to vary, depending on the condition being assessed.

Cell-free DNA testing has reduced the number of invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures, some of which can lead to miscarriage, and this noninvasive option made sense to Crawley and was covered by government health insurance.

With a market projected to surpass $13 billion by the year 2027, some experts speculate that prenatal genetic testing is the most rapidly adopted test in human history. Globally, noninvasive prenatal tests cost $500 to $3,000 for patients who pay out of pocket, and all those screening options are amassing valuable genetic data troves.

The pioneer of noninvasive prenatal testing, Dennis Lo, PhD, from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, told Medscape Medical News that the success of using cell-free DNA came after a long, winding road of rejected grant applications and scientific skepticism.

“Initially, people did not think this would be useful for assessing chromosomal abnormalities because the thinking at the time was that we would need to count them,” Lo said.

But he was enchanted by early glimpses of the capability of cell-free DNA, and felt driven to pursue unconventional research ideas even though there were significant hurdles to overcome in the lab.

“We were detecting fetal Y chromosomes in women. At first, it was just scientific curiosity,” said Lo. “At the time, people worried that fetal cells would persist from one pregnancy to the next, but we discovered that fetal DNA actually clears very quickly and does not progress into the next pregnancy,” he explained. “This is very important because it won’t alter the accuracy of the test.”

Gripped by the scientific mystery, the researcher put in long hours at the lab. “I’m fortunate I have a very understanding wife who is herself a scientist,” he said. After a particularly long stretch without quality time together, Lo and his spouse, Alice Wong, went to see a Harry Potter movie.

As Lo viewed the Harry Potter H through 3D glasses, he was suddenly reminded of the male human karyotype.

“I saw the vertical stripes of the H and it hit me,” he told Medscape Medical News. “There are two sets of chromosomes.” The average human karyotype contains 22 pairs of autosomal chromosomes and one pair of sex chromosomes.

“Our complex genetic conundrum was cracked in the middle of a Harry Potter movie in a moment when I felt completely relaxed,” he recalled. “My wife said: ‘You can’t even watch a movie properly.’ ”

Back at the lab, Lo shared his Harry Potter–inspired concept and the team got to work.

In December 2019, Lo received the Fudan-Zhongzhi Science Award in Shanghai from Nobel laureate physicist Samuel Chao Chung Ting, chair of the award committee. The prize honors fundamental and groundbreaking achievements in biomedicine, and the laureate receives ¥3 million (about U.S. $428,550), donated by Zhongzhi Enterprise Group.

This honor was 30 years in the making, Lo told Medscape Medical News. “I’m pleased to experience public recognition and this is a high honor in China,” he added.

“Noninvasive prenatal testing is better than anything we’ve ever had before,” said Ronald Wapner, MD, from the Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, who taught a course on the transition of prenatal diagnostics from amniocentesis to whole-genome sequencing at the recent Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine 2020 Annual Pregnancy Meeting.

“We now have the capability to improve healthcare decision-making in utero and at birth,” he told Medscape Medical News. “It’s remarkable.”

But, Wapner said, the market grew too fast. “The National Institutes of Health didn’t even play a role in these fast-paced developments. Traditional governing bodies and authorities were bypassed as cytogenetic labs marketed directly to physicians and patients,” he explained.

One of the major problems with the rapid uptake in testing is a lack of preparation for patients like Crawley.

The clinician who delivered her test results was not feeling well, so “she spoke through a surgical mask,” Crawley reported. “I was trying to understand what she was saying, but it was an uncomfortable exchange.”

Crawley had undergone prenatal genetic testing because her ultrasound had shown irregularities in fetal leg measurements. The genetic tests confirmed no anomalies in the chromosome count, but that was it.

“There was no prognosis, just vague numbers that no one seemed to know what to do with,” Crawley recalled.

With concern about growth measurements, the conversation moved quickly to options, including termination. Crawley said the dialogue felt jarring and moved too quickly for her to process all the information and possible courses of action.

She was told she could terminate and “try again to get pregnant.” But Crawley was 39 years old and had been trying to conceive for 2 years.

“It was devastating,” she said. “No one sat down with me before this appointment to learn about my values or preferences, and I left that conversation with more questions than I had before I arrived. I went home and had one the worst weekends of my life. My husband and I felt so overwhelmed, grieved, and alone.”

Pretest counseling can be as important as any subsequent genetic counseling, said Blair Stevens, a prenatal expert from the National Society of Genetic Counselors and a genetic counselor at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston.

“Information is valuable, but it can also be toxic, depending on what individuals intend to do with what they learn,” she explained. “We cannot unknow or unhear details, so it’s really important to work with patients in advance to make sure their preferences guide any planning.”

Uncertainty can be very unsettling, she acknowledged. “It’s important to help patients balance any ambiguity, so if there is a 20% risk, there is also an 80% chance of another, perhaps more favorable, outcome.”

Most clinicians don’t have the time to fully assess patient goals and align counseling approaches to individual needs, Stevens explained. And public interest in prenatal testing has outpaced clinical best practices as competing labs race to expand offerings and add options to screening tests to grab a piece of the global market, which is now about 130 million births per year.

“These are not scientifically sound additions and we need more evidence,” Stevens said. “There is a right way to handle this, and labs and clinicians need to collaborate on responsible methods to test and integrate expanding options.”
 

The blue and pink elephant in the room

“The reality is that most people don’t have a super high risk for chromosomal irregularities,” said Stevens. “Most people are more interested in learning the sex of their baby in early pregnancy than in any actual desire for genetic information.” Noninvasive prenatal testing can detect fetal sex as early as 9 weeks into a pregnancy, whereas ultrasound might not detect it until about 18 weeks.

“Honestly? I think the growing popularity of gender-reveal parties is what is actually driving the push for more prenatal testing,” she added. “The problem is that a couple eager to learn the sex of their baby may wind up with way more information than they expected and have trouble processing unanticipated risk.”

In February, five national medical organizations in the United States partnered with the Reproductive Genetics Technology Consortium to develop consensus recommendations and guidelines for prenatal genetic testing.

The National Society of Genetic Counselors and the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine are among the new members that will provide a forum through which commercial laboratories can communicate about new technologies and obtain input and guidance on emerging options.

Wapner, who is a member of the consortium, said he hopes thought leaders will be at the forefront to guide this next chapter of prenatal screening. “So much money is pouring into all this testing; let’s make sure we are making the right, most essential screening decisions,” he said.

“Science typically advances more rapidly than the ethical and legal framework to support decision-making, and it’s important for society to put protections in place,” Lo acknowledged.

The misuse of screening and unethical sex-selection efforts in Asia and elsewhere in the world, where males are highly valued and females are more likely to be aborted, is dismaying, he told Medscape Medical News. “These are exploitations of the science.”

In addition to scientific misuse like sex selection, data breaches are becoming a huge concern as companies amass large amounts of valuable genetic information.
 

Data for ransom

In Canada, where Crawley took her test, LifeLabs – the country’s largest laboratory testing company and a provider of genetic testing – paid a ransom after a major cyberattack led to the theft of lab results for 85,000 people in Ontario and the personal information of 15 million customers.

LifeLabs paid an undisclosed sum to retrieve the data, the company reported on December 17, and hired cybersecurity experts to assess the damage. The company is offering security protection services, including identity theft and fraud protection insurance, to customers.

“This has served as a reminder that we need to stay ahead of cybercrime, which has become a pervasive issue around the world in all sectors,” Charles Brown, president and chief executive officer of LifeLabs, wrote in a letter to customers. “You entrust us with important health information, and we take that responsibility very seriously.”

The United States has led the world in the commercial push for more prenatal testing. Other countries in Europe, for example, have proceeded with caution and have integrated the technologies with more controls. Hong Kong, where the inventor of the test is based, has been among the slowest to adopt the practice.

“I have been lobbying for 8 years for Hong Kong to offer testing,” said Lo. “I think Hong Kong has been too slow to integrate, but the United States probably moved too quickly. There is a balance that I think countries like the Netherlands have found; they take the aim of screening into account, along with justice and societal aspects.”

“Ideally, we will develop a great pretest model triage tool to help guide patients through this process,” Stevens said. “And we have to make sure the data they receive are clinically useful and backed up by evidence to safeguard the care of every patient.”

The practice of medicine is meticulously designed to assess and mitigate risk, “but this sensible objective can also be extremely negative in focus, with not-so-great delivery of information,” she acknowledged. Each individual’s tolerance for uncertainty and ability to cope in the face of adversity varies. “These are complex conversations that require time and empathy, and the details matter,” she added.

“In my home state of Texas, where there is a large religious base, there is not as much drive for advance prenatal genetic information,” Stevens explained. “We see a real advocacy movement emerging and a need for information from patients first because these can’t really be clinician-led decisions,” she pointed out. “Patients come to us undergoing not just the physical changes of pregnancy, but also emotional transformation as they transition to become parents. They may be nauseous or already sleep-deprived and they need our help,” she added.

Crawley could feel the fluttering of fetal movements in her womb and said she felt connected to her child, but she remembered her trip to Ireland when she and her husband drank too much and they likely conceived. Irrational thoughts crept in: “Maybe it was something we did. What about my swimming; could it have been harmful?”

Apprehensions lingered as she waited to meet her specialist. Would the child grow and be able to walk? Be held back by disabling joint pain? Crawley sat down with her doctor at the high-risk clinic to discuss the possibilities.

“I don’t see anything to be alarmed about. She’s probably going to be small,” said the obstetrician.

“She?!” Crawley had opted not to learn the sex of her baby, unlike so many other parents she knew, but her hope for her baby’s good health soared above the accidental disclosure.

“Everything changed in that moment,” Crawley said. “I knew that we were going to be okay no matter what happened next.”

Crawley’s pregnancy progressed to term and she gave birth to a healthy baby girl who is now 3 years old and dances ballet. Her beloved daughter is shorter than some of the other dancers in her class, but her mom says she hasn’t missed a beat. “The world is a better place because my daughter is in it,” Crawley said. “This, I know for sure.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.