A new prognostic score is more accurate than the commonly used Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) in predicting post–transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) survival, researchers say.

The Freiburg Index of Post-TIPS Survival (FIPS) could help patients and doctors weigh the benefits and risks of the procedure, said Chongtu Yang, MD, a postgraduate fellow at the Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.

“For patients defined as high risk, the TIPS procedure may not be the optimal choice, and transplantation may be better,” Dr. Yang told this news organization. He cautioned that FIPS needs further validation before being applied in clinical practice.

The study by Dr. Yang and his colleagues was published online Feb. 9 in the American Journal of Roentgenology. To their knowledge, this is the first study to validate FIPS in a cohort of Asian patients.

Decompensated cirrhosis can cause variceal bleeding and refractory ascites and may be life threatening. TIPS can manage these complications but comes with its own risks.

To determine which patients can best benefit from the procedure, researchers have proposed a variety of prognostic scoring systems. Some were developed for other purposes, such as predicting survival following hospitalization, rather than specifically for TIPS. Additionally, few studies have compared these approaches to each other.
 

A four-way comparison

To fill that gap, Dr. Yang and his colleagues compared four predictive models: the MELD, the sodium MELD (MELD-Na), the Chronic Liver Failure–Consortium Acute Decompensation (CLIF-CAD), and FIPS.

The MELD score uses serum bilirubin, serum creatinine, and the international normalized ratio (INR) of prothrombin time. MELD-Na adds sodium to this algorithm. The CLIF-CAD score is calculated using age, serum creatinine, INR, white blood count, and sodium level. FIPS, which was recently devised to predict results with TIPS, uses age, bilirubin, albumin, and creatinine.

To see which yielded more accurate predictions, Dr. Yang and his colleagues followed 383 patients with cirrhosis (mean age, 55 years; 341 with variceal bleeding and 42 with refractory ascites) who underwent TIPS placement at Wuhan Union Hospital between January 2016 and August 2021.

The most common cause of cirrhosis was hepatitis B infection (58.2% of patients), followed by hepatitis C infection (11.7%) and alcohol use (13.6%).

The researchers followed the patients for a median of 23.4 months. They lost track of 31 patients over that time, and another 72 died. The survival rate after TIPS placement was 92.3% at 6 months, 87.8% at 12 months, and 81.2% at 24 months. Thirty-seven patients received a TIPS revision.

In their first measure of the models’ accuracy, the researchers used a concordance index, which compares actual results with predicted results. The number of concordant pairs are divided by the total number of possible evaluation pairs. A score of 1 represents 100% accuracy.

By this measure, the prediction of survival at 6 months was highest for FIPS followed by CLIF-CAD, MELD, and MELD-Na. However, the confidence intervals overlapped.

Is FIPS worth implementing?

With scores this close, it may not be worth changing the predictive model clinicians use for choosing TIPS candidates, said Nancy Reau, MD, chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was not involved in the study.

MELD scores are already programmed into many electronic medical record systems in the United States, and clinicians are familiar with using that system to aid in further decisions, such as decisions regarding other kinds of surgery, she told this news organization.

“If you’re going to try to advocate for a new system, you really have to show that the performance of the predictive score is monumentally better than the tried and true,” she said.

Dr. Yang and Dr. Reau report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new prognostic score is more accurate than the commonly used Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) in predicting post–transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) survival, researchers say.

The Freiburg Index of Post-TIPS Survival (FIPS) could help patients and doctors weigh the benefits and risks of the procedure, said Chongtu Yang, MD, a postgraduate fellow at the Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.

“For patients defined as high risk, the TIPS procedure may not be the optimal choice, and transplantation may be better,” Dr. Yang told this news organization. He cautioned that FIPS needs further validation before being applied in clinical practice.

The study by Dr. Yang and his colleagues was published online Feb. 9 in the American Journal of Roentgenology. To their knowledge, this is the first study to validate FIPS in a cohort of Asian patients.

Decompensated cirrhosis can cause variceal bleeding and refractory ascites and may be life threatening. TIPS can manage these complications but comes with its own risks.

To determine which patients can best benefit from the procedure, researchers have proposed a variety of prognostic scoring systems. Some were developed for other purposes, such as predicting survival following hospitalization, rather than specifically for TIPS. Additionally, few studies have compared these approaches to each other.
 

A four-way comparison

To fill that gap, Dr. Yang and his colleagues compared four predictive models: the MELD, the sodium MELD (MELD-Na), the Chronic Liver Failure–Consortium Acute Decompensation (CLIF-CAD), and FIPS.

The MELD score uses serum bilirubin, serum creatinine, and the international normalized ratio (INR) of prothrombin time. MELD-Na adds sodium to this algorithm. The CLIF-CAD score is calculated using age, serum creatinine, INR, white blood count, and sodium level. FIPS, which was recently devised to predict results with TIPS, uses age, bilirubin, albumin, and creatinine.

To see which yielded more accurate predictions, Dr. Yang and his colleagues followed 383 patients with cirrhosis (mean age, 55 years; 341 with variceal bleeding and 42 with refractory ascites) who underwent TIPS placement at Wuhan Union Hospital between January 2016 and August 2021.

The most common cause of cirrhosis was hepatitis B infection (58.2% of patients), followed by hepatitis C infection (11.7%) and alcohol use (13.6%).

The researchers followed the patients for a median of 23.4 months. They lost track of 31 patients over that time, and another 72 died. The survival rate after TIPS placement was 92.3% at 6 months, 87.8% at 12 months, and 81.2% at 24 months. Thirty-seven patients received a TIPS revision.

In their first measure of the models’ accuracy, the researchers used a concordance index, which compares actual results with predicted results. The number of concordant pairs are divided by the total number of possible evaluation pairs. A score of 1 represents 100% accuracy.

By this measure, the prediction of survival at 6 months was highest for FIPS followed by CLIF-CAD, MELD, and MELD-Na. However, the confidence intervals overlapped.

Is FIPS worth implementing?

With scores this close, it may not be worth changing the predictive model clinicians use for choosing TIPS candidates, said Nancy Reau, MD, chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was not involved in the study.

MELD scores are already programmed into many electronic medical record systems in the United States, and clinicians are familiar with using that system to aid in further decisions, such as decisions regarding other kinds of surgery, she told this news organization.

“If you’re going to try to advocate for a new system, you really have to show that the performance of the predictive score is monumentally better than the tried and true,” she said.

Dr. Yang and Dr. Reau report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new prognostic score is more accurate than the commonly used Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) in predicting post–transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) survival, researchers say.

The Freiburg Index of Post-TIPS Survival (FIPS) could help patients and doctors weigh the benefits and risks of the procedure, said Chongtu Yang, MD, a postgraduate fellow at the Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.

“For patients defined as high risk, the TIPS procedure may not be the optimal choice, and transplantation may be better,” Dr. Yang told this news organization. He cautioned that FIPS needs further validation before being applied in clinical practice.

The study by Dr. Yang and his colleagues was published online Feb. 9 in the American Journal of Roentgenology. To their knowledge, this is the first study to validate FIPS in a cohort of Asian patients.

Decompensated cirrhosis can cause variceal bleeding and refractory ascites and may be life threatening. TIPS can manage these complications but comes with its own risks.

To determine which patients can best benefit from the procedure, researchers have proposed a variety of prognostic scoring systems. Some were developed for other purposes, such as predicting survival following hospitalization, rather than specifically for TIPS. Additionally, few studies have compared these approaches to each other.
 

A four-way comparison

To fill that gap, Dr. Yang and his colleagues compared four predictive models: the MELD, the sodium MELD (MELD-Na), the Chronic Liver Failure–Consortium Acute Decompensation (CLIF-CAD), and FIPS.

The MELD score uses serum bilirubin, serum creatinine, and the international normalized ratio (INR) of prothrombin time. MELD-Na adds sodium to this algorithm. The CLIF-CAD score is calculated using age, serum creatinine, INR, white blood count, and sodium level. FIPS, which was recently devised to predict results with TIPS, uses age, bilirubin, albumin, and creatinine.

To see which yielded more accurate predictions, Dr. Yang and his colleagues followed 383 patients with cirrhosis (mean age, 55 years; 341 with variceal bleeding and 42 with refractory ascites) who underwent TIPS placement at Wuhan Union Hospital between January 2016 and August 2021.

The most common cause of cirrhosis was hepatitis B infection (58.2% of patients), followed by hepatitis C infection (11.7%) and alcohol use (13.6%).

The researchers followed the patients for a median of 23.4 months. They lost track of 31 patients over that time, and another 72 died. The survival rate after TIPS placement was 92.3% at 6 months, 87.8% at 12 months, and 81.2% at 24 months. Thirty-seven patients received a TIPS revision.

In their first measure of the models’ accuracy, the researchers used a concordance index, which compares actual results with predicted results. The number of concordant pairs are divided by the total number of possible evaluation pairs. A score of 1 represents 100% accuracy.

By this measure, the prediction of survival at 6 months was highest for FIPS followed by CLIF-CAD, MELD, and MELD-Na. However, the confidence intervals overlapped.

Is FIPS worth implementing?

With scores this close, it may not be worth changing the predictive model clinicians use for choosing TIPS candidates, said Nancy Reau, MD, chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was not involved in the study.

MELD scores are already programmed into many electronic medical record systems in the United States, and clinicians are familiar with using that system to aid in further decisions, such as decisions regarding other kinds of surgery, she told this news organization.

“If you’re going to try to advocate for a new system, you really have to show that the performance of the predictive score is monumentally better than the tried and true,” she said.

Dr. Yang and Dr. Reau report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Kia Slade was 7 months pregnant, unvaccinated, and fighting for breath, her oxygen levels plummeting, when her son came into the world last May.

A severe case of COVID-19 pneumonia had left Ms. Slade delirious. When the intensive care team tried to place an oxygen mask on her face, she snatched it away, she recalled. Her baby’s heart rate began to drop.

Ms. Slade’s doctor performed an emergency cesarean section at her bedside in the intensive care unit, delivering baby Tristan 10 weeks early. He weighed just 2 pounds, 14 ounces, about half the size of small full-term baby.

But Ms. Slade wouldn’t meet him until July. She was on a ventilator in a medically-induced coma for 8 weeks, and she developed a serious infection and blood clot while unconscious. It was only after a perilous 2½ months in the hospital, during which her heart stopped twice, that Ms. Slade was vaccinated against COVID-19.

“I wish I had gotten the vaccine earlier,” said Ms. Slade, 42, who remains too sick to return to work as a special education teacher in Baltimore. Doctors “kept pushing me to get vaccinated, but there just wasn’t enough information out there for me to do it.”

A year ago, there was little to no vaccine safety data for pregnant people like Ms. Slade, because they had been excluded from clinical trials run by Pfizer, Moderna, and other vaccine makers.

Lacking data, health experts were unsure and divided about how to advise expectant parents. Although U.S. health officials permitted pregnant people to be vaccinated, the World Health Organization in January 2021 actually discouraged them from doing so; it later reversed that recommendation.

The uncertainty led many women to delay vaccination, and only about two-thirds of the pregnant people who have been tracked by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were fully vaccinated as of Feb. 5, 2022, leaving many expectant moms at a high risk of infection and life-threatening complications.

More than 29,000 pregnant people have been hospitalized with COVID-19 and 274 have died, according to the CDC.

“There were surely women who were hospitalized because there wasn’t information available to them,” said Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Vaccine developers say that pregnant people – who have special health needs and risks – were excluded from clinical trials to protect them from potential side effects of novel technologies, including the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and formulations made with cold viruses, such as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

But a KHN analysis also shows that pregnant people were left behind because including them in vaccine studies would have complicated and potentially delayed the delivery of COVID-19 vaccines to the broader population.

A growing number of women’s health researchers and advocates say that excluding pregnant people – and the months-long delay in recommending that they be immunized – helped fuel widespread vaccine hesitancy in this vulnerable group.

“Women and their unborn fetuses are dying of COVID infection,” said Jane Van Dis, MD, an ob.gyn. at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center who has treated many patients like Ms. Slade. “Our failure as a society to vaccinate women in pregnancy will be remembered by the children and families who lost their mothers to this disease.”
 

New technology, uncertain risks

At the time COVID-19 vaccines were being developed, scientists had very little experience using mRNA vaccines in pregnant women, said Jacqueline Miller, MD, a senior vice president involved in vaccine research at Moderna.

“When you study anything in pregnant women, you have two patients, the mom and the unborn child,” Dr. Miller said. “Until we had more safety data on the platform, it wasn’t something we wanted to undertake.”

But Dr. Offit noted that vaccines have a strong record of safety in pregnancy and he sees no reason to have excluded pregnant people. None of the vaccines currently in use – including the chickenpox and rubella vaccines, which contain live viruses – have been shown to harm fetuses, he said. Doctors routinely recommend that pregnant people receive pertussis and flu vaccinations.

Dr. Offit, the coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, said that some concerns about vaccines stem from commercial, not medical, interests. Drug makers don’t want to risk that their product will be blamed for any problems occurring in pregnant people, even if coincidental, he said.

“These companies don’t want bad news,” Dr. Offit said.

In the United States, health officials typically would have told expectant mothers not to take a vaccine that was untested during pregnancy, said Dr. Offit, a member of a committee that advises the Food and Drug Administration on vaccines.

Due to the urgency of the pandemic, health agencies instead permitted pregnant people to make up their own minds about vaccines without recommending them.

Women’s medical associations were also hampered by the lack of data. Neither the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists nor the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine actively encouraged pregnant people to be vaccinated until July 30, 2021, after the first real-world vaccine studies had been published. The CDC followed suit in August of 2021.

“If we had had this data in the beginning, we would have been able to vaccinate more women,” said Kelli Burroughs, MD, the department chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Memorial Hermann Sugar Land Hospital near Houston.

Yet anti-vaccine groups wasted no time in scaring pregnant people, flooding social media with misinformation about impaired fertility and harm to the fetus.

In the first few months after the COVID-19 vaccines were approved, some doctors were ambivalent about recommending them, and some still advise pregnant patients against vaccination.

An estimated 67% of pregnant people today are fully vaccinated, compared with about 89% of people 65 and older, another high-risk group, and 65% of Americans overall. Vaccination rates are lower among minorities, with 65% of expectant Hispanic mothers and 53% of pregnant African Americans fully vaccinated, according to the CDC.

Vaccination is especially important during pregnancy, because of increased risks of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation, Dr. Burroughs said. A study released in February from the National Institutes of Health found that pregnant people with a moderate to severe COVID-19 infection also were more likely to have a C-section, deliver preterm, or develop a postpartum hemorrhage.

Black moms such as Ms. Slade were already at higher risk of maternal and infant mortality before the pandemic, because of higher underlying risks, unequal access to health care, and other factors. COVID-19 has magnified those risks, said Dr. Burroughs, who has persuaded reluctant patients by revealing that she had a healthy pregnancy and child after being vaccinated.

Ms. Slade said she has never opposed vaccines and had no hesitation about receiving other vaccines while pregnant. But she said she “just wasn’t comfortable” with COVID-19 shots.

“If there had been data out there saying the COVID shot was safe, and that nothing would happen to my baby and there was no risk of birth defects, I would have taken it,” said Ms. Slade, who has had type 2 diabetes for 12 years.
 

Working at warp speed

Government scientists at the NIH were concerned about the risk of COVID-19 to pregnant people from the very beginning and knew that expectant moms needed vaccines as much or more than anyone else, said Larry Corey, MD, a leader of the COVID-19 Prevention Network, which coordinated COVID-19 vaccine trials for the federal government.

But including pregnant volunteers in the larger vaccine trials could have led to interruptions and delays, Dr. Corey said. Researchers would have had to enroll thousands of pregnant volunteers to achieve statistically robust results that weren’t due to chance, he said.

Pregnancy can bring on a wide range of complications: gestational diabetes, hypertension, anemia, bleeding, blood clots, or problems with the placenta, for example. Up to 20% of people who know they’re pregnant miscarry. Because researchers would have been obliged to investigate any medical problem to make sure it wasn’t caused by one of the COVID-19 vaccines, including pregnant people might have meant having to hit pause on those trials, Dr. Corey said.

With death tolls from the pandemic mounting, “we had a mission to do this as quickly and as thoroughly as possible,” Dr. Corey said. Making COVID-19 vaccines available within a year “saved hundreds of thousands of lives.”

The first data on COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnancy was published in April of 2021 when the CDC released an analysis of nearly 36,000 vaccinated pregnant people who had enrolled in a registry called V-safe, which allows users to log the dates of their vaccinations and any subsequent symptoms.

Later research showed that COVID-19 vaccines weren’t associated with increased risk of miscarriage or premature delivery.

Brenna Hughes, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and member of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ COVID-19 expert group, agrees that adding pregnant people to large-scale COVID-19 vaccine and drug trials may have been impractical. But researchers could have launched parallel trials of pregnant women, once early studies showed the vaccines were safe in humans, she said.

“Would it have been hard? Everything with COVID is hard,” Dr. Hughes said. “But it would have been feasible.”

The FDA requires that researchers perform additional animal studies – called developmental and reproductive toxicity studies – before testing vaccines in pregnant people. Although these studies are essential, they take 5-6 months, and weren’t completed until late 2020, around the time the first COVID-19 vaccines were authorized for adults, said Emily Erbelding, MD, director of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the NIH.

Pregnancy studies “were an afterthought,” said Irina Burd, MD, director of Johns Hopkins’ Integrated Research Center for Fetal Medicine and a professor of gynecology and obstetrics. “They should have been done sooner.”

The NIH is conducting a study of pregnant and postpartum people who decided on their own to be vaccinated, Dr. Erbelding said. The study is due to be completed by July 2023.

Janssen and Moderna are also conducting studies in pregnant people, both due to be completed in 2024.

Pfizer scientists encountered problems when they initiated a clinical trial, which would have randomly assigned pregnant people to receive either a vaccine or placebo. Once vaccines were widely available, many patients weren’t willing to take a chance on being unvaccinated until after delivery.

Pfizer has stopped recruiting patients and has not said whether it will publicly report any data from the trial.

Dr. Hughes said vaccine developers need to include pregnant people from the very beginning.

“There is this notion of protecting pregnant people from research,” Dr. Hughes said. “But we should be protecting patients through research, not from research.”
 

Recovering physically and emotionally

Ms. Slade still regrets being deprived of time with her children while she fought the disease.

Being on a ventilator kept her from spending those early weeks with her newborn, or from seeing her 9-year-old daughter, Zoe.

Even when Ms. Slade was finally able to see her son, she wasn’t able to tell him she loved him or sing a lullaby, or even talk at all, because of a breathing tube in her throat.

Today, Ms. Slade is a strong advocate of COVID-19 vaccinations, urging her friends and family to get their shots to avoid suffering the way she has.

Ms. Slade had to relearn to walk after being bedridden for weeks. Her many weeks on a ventilator may have contributed to her stomach paralysis, which often causes intense pain, nausea, and even vomiting when she eats or drinks. Ms. Slade weighs 50 pounds less today than before she became pregnant and has resorted to going to the emergency department when the pain is unbearable. “Most days, I’m just miserable,” she said.

Her family suffered as well. Like many babies born prematurely, Tristan, now nearly 9 months old and crawling, receives physical therapy to strengthen his muscles. At 15 pounds, Tristan is largely healthy, although his doctor said he has symptoms of asthma.

Ms. Slade said she would like to attend family counseling with Zoe, who rarely complains and tends to keep her feelings to herself. Ms. Slade said she knows her illness must have been terrifying for her little girl.

“The other day she was talking to me,” Ms. Slade said, “and she said, ‘You know, I almost had to bury you.’ ”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Kia Slade was 7 months pregnant, unvaccinated, and fighting for breath, her oxygen levels plummeting, when her son came into the world last May.

A severe case of COVID-19 pneumonia had left Ms. Slade delirious. When the intensive care team tried to place an oxygen mask on her face, she snatched it away, she recalled. Her baby’s heart rate began to drop.

Ms. Slade’s doctor performed an emergency cesarean section at her bedside in the intensive care unit, delivering baby Tristan 10 weeks early. He weighed just 2 pounds, 14 ounces, about half the size of small full-term baby.

But Ms. Slade wouldn’t meet him until July. She was on a ventilator in a medically-induced coma for 8 weeks, and she developed a serious infection and blood clot while unconscious. It was only after a perilous 2½ months in the hospital, during which her heart stopped twice, that Ms. Slade was vaccinated against COVID-19.

“I wish I had gotten the vaccine earlier,” said Ms. Slade, 42, who remains too sick to return to work as a special education teacher in Baltimore. Doctors “kept pushing me to get vaccinated, but there just wasn’t enough information out there for me to do it.”

A year ago, there was little to no vaccine safety data for pregnant people like Ms. Slade, because they had been excluded from clinical trials run by Pfizer, Moderna, and other vaccine makers.

Lacking data, health experts were unsure and divided about how to advise expectant parents. Although U.S. health officials permitted pregnant people to be vaccinated, the World Health Organization in January 2021 actually discouraged them from doing so; it later reversed that recommendation.

The uncertainty led many women to delay vaccination, and only about two-thirds of the pregnant people who have been tracked by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were fully vaccinated as of Feb. 5, 2022, leaving many expectant moms at a high risk of infection and life-threatening complications.

More than 29,000 pregnant people have been hospitalized with COVID-19 and 274 have died, according to the CDC.

“There were surely women who were hospitalized because there wasn’t information available to them,” said Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Vaccine developers say that pregnant people – who have special health needs and risks – were excluded from clinical trials to protect them from potential side effects of novel technologies, including the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and formulations made with cold viruses, such as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

But a KHN analysis also shows that pregnant people were left behind because including them in vaccine studies would have complicated and potentially delayed the delivery of COVID-19 vaccines to the broader population.

A growing number of women’s health researchers and advocates say that excluding pregnant people – and the months-long delay in recommending that they be immunized – helped fuel widespread vaccine hesitancy in this vulnerable group.

“Women and their unborn fetuses are dying of COVID infection,” said Jane Van Dis, MD, an ob.gyn. at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center who has treated many patients like Ms. Slade. “Our failure as a society to vaccinate women in pregnancy will be remembered by the children and families who lost their mothers to this disease.”
 

New technology, uncertain risks

At the time COVID-19 vaccines were being developed, scientists had very little experience using mRNA vaccines in pregnant women, said Jacqueline Miller, MD, a senior vice president involved in vaccine research at Moderna.

“When you study anything in pregnant women, you have two patients, the mom and the unborn child,” Dr. Miller said. “Until we had more safety data on the platform, it wasn’t something we wanted to undertake.”

But Dr. Offit noted that vaccines have a strong record of safety in pregnancy and he sees no reason to have excluded pregnant people. None of the vaccines currently in use – including the chickenpox and rubella vaccines, which contain live viruses – have been shown to harm fetuses, he said. Doctors routinely recommend that pregnant people receive pertussis and flu vaccinations.

Dr. Offit, the coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, said that some concerns about vaccines stem from commercial, not medical, interests. Drug makers don’t want to risk that their product will be blamed for any problems occurring in pregnant people, even if coincidental, he said.

“These companies don’t want bad news,” Dr. Offit said.

In the United States, health officials typically would have told expectant mothers not to take a vaccine that was untested during pregnancy, said Dr. Offit, a member of a committee that advises the Food and Drug Administration on vaccines.

Due to the urgency of the pandemic, health agencies instead permitted pregnant people to make up their own minds about vaccines without recommending them.

Women’s medical associations were also hampered by the lack of data. Neither the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists nor the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine actively encouraged pregnant people to be vaccinated until July 30, 2021, after the first real-world vaccine studies had been published. The CDC followed suit in August of 2021.

“If we had had this data in the beginning, we would have been able to vaccinate more women,” said Kelli Burroughs, MD, the department chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Memorial Hermann Sugar Land Hospital near Houston.

Yet anti-vaccine groups wasted no time in scaring pregnant people, flooding social media with misinformation about impaired fertility and harm to the fetus.

In the first few months after the COVID-19 vaccines were approved, some doctors were ambivalent about recommending them, and some still advise pregnant patients against vaccination.

An estimated 67% of pregnant people today are fully vaccinated, compared with about 89% of people 65 and older, another high-risk group, and 65% of Americans overall. Vaccination rates are lower among minorities, with 65% of expectant Hispanic mothers and 53% of pregnant African Americans fully vaccinated, according to the CDC.

Vaccination is especially important during pregnancy, because of increased risks of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation, Dr. Burroughs said. A study released in February from the National Institutes of Health found that pregnant people with a moderate to severe COVID-19 infection also were more likely to have a C-section, deliver preterm, or develop a postpartum hemorrhage.

Black moms such as Ms. Slade were already at higher risk of maternal and infant mortality before the pandemic, because of higher underlying risks, unequal access to health care, and other factors. COVID-19 has magnified those risks, said Dr. Burroughs, who has persuaded reluctant patients by revealing that she had a healthy pregnancy and child after being vaccinated.

Ms. Slade said she has never opposed vaccines and had no hesitation about receiving other vaccines while pregnant. But she said she “just wasn’t comfortable” with COVID-19 shots.

“If there had been data out there saying the COVID shot was safe, and that nothing would happen to my baby and there was no risk of birth defects, I would have taken it,” said Ms. Slade, who has had type 2 diabetes for 12 years.
 

Working at warp speed

Government scientists at the NIH were concerned about the risk of COVID-19 to pregnant people from the very beginning and knew that expectant moms needed vaccines as much or more than anyone else, said Larry Corey, MD, a leader of the COVID-19 Prevention Network, which coordinated COVID-19 vaccine trials for the federal government.

But including pregnant volunteers in the larger vaccine trials could have led to interruptions and delays, Dr. Corey said. Researchers would have had to enroll thousands of pregnant volunteers to achieve statistically robust results that weren’t due to chance, he said.

Pregnancy can bring on a wide range of complications: gestational diabetes, hypertension, anemia, bleeding, blood clots, or problems with the placenta, for example. Up to 20% of people who know they’re pregnant miscarry. Because researchers would have been obliged to investigate any medical problem to make sure it wasn’t caused by one of the COVID-19 vaccines, including pregnant people might have meant having to hit pause on those trials, Dr. Corey said.

With death tolls from the pandemic mounting, “we had a mission to do this as quickly and as thoroughly as possible,” Dr. Corey said. Making COVID-19 vaccines available within a year “saved hundreds of thousands of lives.”

The first data on COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnancy was published in April of 2021 when the CDC released an analysis of nearly 36,000 vaccinated pregnant people who had enrolled in a registry called V-safe, which allows users to log the dates of their vaccinations and any subsequent symptoms.

Later research showed that COVID-19 vaccines weren’t associated with increased risk of miscarriage or premature delivery.

Brenna Hughes, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and member of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ COVID-19 expert group, agrees that adding pregnant people to large-scale COVID-19 vaccine and drug trials may have been impractical. But researchers could have launched parallel trials of pregnant women, once early studies showed the vaccines were safe in humans, she said.

“Would it have been hard? Everything with COVID is hard,” Dr. Hughes said. “But it would have been feasible.”

The FDA requires that researchers perform additional animal studies – called developmental and reproductive toxicity studies – before testing vaccines in pregnant people. Although these studies are essential, they take 5-6 months, and weren’t completed until late 2020, around the time the first COVID-19 vaccines were authorized for adults, said Emily Erbelding, MD, director of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the NIH.

Pregnancy studies “were an afterthought,” said Irina Burd, MD, director of Johns Hopkins’ Integrated Research Center for Fetal Medicine and a professor of gynecology and obstetrics. “They should have been done sooner.”

The NIH is conducting a study of pregnant and postpartum people who decided on their own to be vaccinated, Dr. Erbelding said. The study is due to be completed by July 2023.

Janssen and Moderna are also conducting studies in pregnant people, both due to be completed in 2024.

Pfizer scientists encountered problems when they initiated a clinical trial, which would have randomly assigned pregnant people to receive either a vaccine or placebo. Once vaccines were widely available, many patients weren’t willing to take a chance on being unvaccinated until after delivery.

Pfizer has stopped recruiting patients and has not said whether it will publicly report any data from the trial.

Dr. Hughes said vaccine developers need to include pregnant people from the very beginning.

“There is this notion of protecting pregnant people from research,” Dr. Hughes said. “But we should be protecting patients through research, not from research.”
 

Recovering physically and emotionally

Ms. Slade still regrets being deprived of time with her children while she fought the disease.

Being on a ventilator kept her from spending those early weeks with her newborn, or from seeing her 9-year-old daughter, Zoe.

Even when Ms. Slade was finally able to see her son, she wasn’t able to tell him she loved him or sing a lullaby, or even talk at all, because of a breathing tube in her throat.

Today, Ms. Slade is a strong advocate of COVID-19 vaccinations, urging her friends and family to get their shots to avoid suffering the way she has.

Ms. Slade had to relearn to walk after being bedridden for weeks. Her many weeks on a ventilator may have contributed to her stomach paralysis, which often causes intense pain, nausea, and even vomiting when she eats or drinks. Ms. Slade weighs 50 pounds less today than before she became pregnant and has resorted to going to the emergency department when the pain is unbearable. “Most days, I’m just miserable,” she said.

Her family suffered as well. Like many babies born prematurely, Tristan, now nearly 9 months old and crawling, receives physical therapy to strengthen his muscles. At 15 pounds, Tristan is largely healthy, although his doctor said he has symptoms of asthma.

Ms. Slade said she would like to attend family counseling with Zoe, who rarely complains and tends to keep her feelings to herself. Ms. Slade said she knows her illness must have been terrifying for her little girl.

“The other day she was talking to me,” Ms. Slade said, “and she said, ‘You know, I almost had to bury you.’ ”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Kia Slade was 7 months pregnant, unvaccinated, and fighting for breath, her oxygen levels plummeting, when her son came into the world last May.

A severe case of COVID-19 pneumonia had left Ms. Slade delirious. When the intensive care team tried to place an oxygen mask on her face, she snatched it away, she recalled. Her baby’s heart rate began to drop.

Ms. Slade’s doctor performed an emergency cesarean section at her bedside in the intensive care unit, delivering baby Tristan 10 weeks early. He weighed just 2 pounds, 14 ounces, about half the size of small full-term baby.

But Ms. Slade wouldn’t meet him until July. She was on a ventilator in a medically-induced coma for 8 weeks, and she developed a serious infection and blood clot while unconscious. It was only after a perilous 2½ months in the hospital, during which her heart stopped twice, that Ms. Slade was vaccinated against COVID-19.

“I wish I had gotten the vaccine earlier,” said Ms. Slade, 42, who remains too sick to return to work as a special education teacher in Baltimore. Doctors “kept pushing me to get vaccinated, but there just wasn’t enough information out there for me to do it.”

A year ago, there was little to no vaccine safety data for pregnant people like Ms. Slade, because they had been excluded from clinical trials run by Pfizer, Moderna, and other vaccine makers.

Lacking data, health experts were unsure and divided about how to advise expectant parents. Although U.S. health officials permitted pregnant people to be vaccinated, the World Health Organization in January 2021 actually discouraged them from doing so; it later reversed that recommendation.

The uncertainty led many women to delay vaccination, and only about two-thirds of the pregnant people who have been tracked by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were fully vaccinated as of Feb. 5, 2022, leaving many expectant moms at a high risk of infection and life-threatening complications.

More than 29,000 pregnant people have been hospitalized with COVID-19 and 274 have died, according to the CDC.

“There were surely women who were hospitalized because there wasn’t information available to them,” said Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Vaccine developers say that pregnant people – who have special health needs and risks – were excluded from clinical trials to protect them from potential side effects of novel technologies, including the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and formulations made with cold viruses, such as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

But a KHN analysis also shows that pregnant people were left behind because including them in vaccine studies would have complicated and potentially delayed the delivery of COVID-19 vaccines to the broader population.

A growing number of women’s health researchers and advocates say that excluding pregnant people – and the months-long delay in recommending that they be immunized – helped fuel widespread vaccine hesitancy in this vulnerable group.

“Women and their unborn fetuses are dying of COVID infection,” said Jane Van Dis, MD, an ob.gyn. at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center who has treated many patients like Ms. Slade. “Our failure as a society to vaccinate women in pregnancy will be remembered by the children and families who lost their mothers to this disease.”
 

New technology, uncertain risks

At the time COVID-19 vaccines were being developed, scientists had very little experience using mRNA vaccines in pregnant women, said Jacqueline Miller, MD, a senior vice president involved in vaccine research at Moderna.

“When you study anything in pregnant women, you have two patients, the mom and the unborn child,” Dr. Miller said. “Until we had more safety data on the platform, it wasn’t something we wanted to undertake.”

But Dr. Offit noted that vaccines have a strong record of safety in pregnancy and he sees no reason to have excluded pregnant people. None of the vaccines currently in use – including the chickenpox and rubella vaccines, which contain live viruses – have been shown to harm fetuses, he said. Doctors routinely recommend that pregnant people receive pertussis and flu vaccinations.

Dr. Offit, the coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, said that some concerns about vaccines stem from commercial, not medical, interests. Drug makers don’t want to risk that their product will be blamed for any problems occurring in pregnant people, even if coincidental, he said.

“These companies don’t want bad news,” Dr. Offit said.

In the United States, health officials typically would have told expectant mothers not to take a vaccine that was untested during pregnancy, said Dr. Offit, a member of a committee that advises the Food and Drug Administration on vaccines.

Due to the urgency of the pandemic, health agencies instead permitted pregnant people to make up their own minds about vaccines without recommending them.

Women’s medical associations were also hampered by the lack of data. Neither the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists nor the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine actively encouraged pregnant people to be vaccinated until July 30, 2021, after the first real-world vaccine studies had been published. The CDC followed suit in August of 2021.

“If we had had this data in the beginning, we would have been able to vaccinate more women,” said Kelli Burroughs, MD, the department chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Memorial Hermann Sugar Land Hospital near Houston.

Yet anti-vaccine groups wasted no time in scaring pregnant people, flooding social media with misinformation about impaired fertility and harm to the fetus.

In the first few months after the COVID-19 vaccines were approved, some doctors were ambivalent about recommending them, and some still advise pregnant patients against vaccination.

An estimated 67% of pregnant people today are fully vaccinated, compared with about 89% of people 65 and older, another high-risk group, and 65% of Americans overall. Vaccination rates are lower among minorities, with 65% of expectant Hispanic mothers and 53% of pregnant African Americans fully vaccinated, according to the CDC.

Vaccination is especially important during pregnancy, because of increased risks of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation, Dr. Burroughs said. A study released in February from the National Institutes of Health found that pregnant people with a moderate to severe COVID-19 infection also were more likely to have a C-section, deliver preterm, or develop a postpartum hemorrhage.

Black moms such as Ms. Slade were already at higher risk of maternal and infant mortality before the pandemic, because of higher underlying risks, unequal access to health care, and other factors. COVID-19 has magnified those risks, said Dr. Burroughs, who has persuaded reluctant patients by revealing that she had a healthy pregnancy and child after being vaccinated.

Ms. Slade said she has never opposed vaccines and had no hesitation about receiving other vaccines while pregnant. But she said she “just wasn’t comfortable” with COVID-19 shots.

“If there had been data out there saying the COVID shot was safe, and that nothing would happen to my baby and there was no risk of birth defects, I would have taken it,” said Ms. Slade, who has had type 2 diabetes for 12 years.
 

Working at warp speed

Government scientists at the NIH were concerned about the risk of COVID-19 to pregnant people from the very beginning and knew that expectant moms needed vaccines as much or more than anyone else, said Larry Corey, MD, a leader of the COVID-19 Prevention Network, which coordinated COVID-19 vaccine trials for the federal government.

But including pregnant volunteers in the larger vaccine trials could have led to interruptions and delays, Dr. Corey said. Researchers would have had to enroll thousands of pregnant volunteers to achieve statistically robust results that weren’t due to chance, he said.

Pregnancy can bring on a wide range of complications: gestational diabetes, hypertension, anemia, bleeding, blood clots, or problems with the placenta, for example. Up to 20% of people who know they’re pregnant miscarry. Because researchers would have been obliged to investigate any medical problem to make sure it wasn’t caused by one of the COVID-19 vaccines, including pregnant people might have meant having to hit pause on those trials, Dr. Corey said.

With death tolls from the pandemic mounting, “we had a mission to do this as quickly and as thoroughly as possible,” Dr. Corey said. Making COVID-19 vaccines available within a year “saved hundreds of thousands of lives.”

The first data on COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnancy was published in April of 2021 when the CDC released an analysis of nearly 36,000 vaccinated pregnant people who had enrolled in a registry called V-safe, which allows users to log the dates of their vaccinations and any subsequent symptoms.

Later research showed that COVID-19 vaccines weren’t associated with increased risk of miscarriage or premature delivery.

Brenna Hughes, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and member of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ COVID-19 expert group, agrees that adding pregnant people to large-scale COVID-19 vaccine and drug trials may have been impractical. But researchers could have launched parallel trials of pregnant women, once early studies showed the vaccines were safe in humans, she said.

“Would it have been hard? Everything with COVID is hard,” Dr. Hughes said. “But it would have been feasible.”

The FDA requires that researchers perform additional animal studies – called developmental and reproductive toxicity studies – before testing vaccines in pregnant people. Although these studies are essential, they take 5-6 months, and weren’t completed until late 2020, around the time the first COVID-19 vaccines were authorized for adults, said Emily Erbelding, MD, director of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the NIH.

Pregnancy studies “were an afterthought,” said Irina Burd, MD, director of Johns Hopkins’ Integrated Research Center for Fetal Medicine and a professor of gynecology and obstetrics. “They should have been done sooner.”

The NIH is conducting a study of pregnant and postpartum people who decided on their own to be vaccinated, Dr. Erbelding said. The study is due to be completed by July 2023.

Janssen and Moderna are also conducting studies in pregnant people, both due to be completed in 2024.

Pfizer scientists encountered problems when they initiated a clinical trial, which would have randomly assigned pregnant people to receive either a vaccine or placebo. Once vaccines were widely available, many patients weren’t willing to take a chance on being unvaccinated until after delivery.

Pfizer has stopped recruiting patients and has not said whether it will publicly report any data from the trial.

Dr. Hughes said vaccine developers need to include pregnant people from the very beginning.

“There is this notion of protecting pregnant people from research,” Dr. Hughes said. “But we should be protecting patients through research, not from research.”
 

Recovering physically and emotionally

Ms. Slade still regrets being deprived of time with her children while she fought the disease.

Being on a ventilator kept her from spending those early weeks with her newborn, or from seeing her 9-year-old daughter, Zoe.

Even when Ms. Slade was finally able to see her son, she wasn’t able to tell him she loved him or sing a lullaby, or even talk at all, because of a breathing tube in her throat.

Today, Ms. Slade is a strong advocate of COVID-19 vaccinations, urging her friends and family to get their shots to avoid suffering the way she has.

Ms. Slade had to relearn to walk after being bedridden for weeks. Her many weeks on a ventilator may have contributed to her stomach paralysis, which often causes intense pain, nausea, and even vomiting when she eats or drinks. Ms. Slade weighs 50 pounds less today than before she became pregnant and has resorted to going to the emergency department when the pain is unbearable. “Most days, I’m just miserable,” she said.

Her family suffered as well. Like many babies born prematurely, Tristan, now nearly 9 months old and crawling, receives physical therapy to strengthen his muscles. At 15 pounds, Tristan is largely healthy, although his doctor said he has symptoms of asthma.

Ms. Slade said she would like to attend family counseling with Zoe, who rarely complains and tends to keep her feelings to herself. Ms. Slade said she knows her illness must have been terrifying for her little girl.

“The other day she was talking to me,” Ms. Slade said, “and she said, ‘You know, I almost had to bury you.’ ”
 

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Use of neuraxial analgesia for vaginal delivery is associated with a 14% decreased risk for severe maternal morbidity, in part from a reduction in postpartum hemorrhage, new research shows.

The findings indicate that increasing the use of epidural or combined spinal-epidural analgesia may improve maternal health outcomes, especially for Hispanic, Black, and uninsured women who are less likely than White women to receive these interventions, according to the researchers, who published their findings online in JAMA Network Open.

About 80% of non-Hispanic White women receive neuraxial analgesia during labor in the United States, compared with 70% of non-Hispanic Black women and 65% of Hispanic women, according to birth certificate data. Among women without health insurance, half receive epidurals.  

Programs that inform pregnant women about epidural use, expand Medicaid, and provide in-house obstetric anesthesia teams “may improve patient participation in clinical decision making and access to care,” study author Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, of Columbia University, New York, said in a statement about the research.

Earlier data from France showed that neuraxial analgesia is associated with reduced risk for severe postpartum hemorrhage. To examine the association between labor neuraxial analgesia and severe maternal morbidity in the United States, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed more than 575,000 vaginal deliveries in New York hospitals between 2010 and 2017; about half (47.4%) of the women received epidurals during labor.

The researchers focused on severe maternal morbidity, including 16 complications, such as heart failure and sepsis, and five procedures, including hysterectomy and ventilation.

They also considered patient characteristics and comorbidities and hospital-related factors to identify patients who were at higher risk for injury or death.

Severe maternal morbidity occurred in 1.3% of the women. Of the 7,712 women with severe morbidity, more than one in three (35.6%) experienced postpartum hemorrhage.

The overall incidence of severe maternal morbidity was 1.3% among women who received an epidural injection and 1.4% among those who did not. In a weighted analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of severe maternal morbidity associated with epidurals was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.90).

The study is limited by its observational design and does not prove causation, the authors acknowledged.

“Labor neuraxial analgesia may facilitate early evaluation and management of the third stage of labor to avoid escalation of postpartum hemorrhaging into grave complications and death,” study author Jean Guglielminotti, MD, PhD, an anesthesiologist at Columbia University, said in a statement.
 

Concerning trends

The Department of Health & Human Services has labeled severe maternal morbidity a public health priority. Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show an increase in maternal mortality rates and worsening disparities by race and ethnicity.

According to the CDC, 861 women died of maternal causes in 2020, up from 754 in 2019. The rate of maternal mortality increased from 20.1 to 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births.

For Black women, however, the maternal mortality rate was far higher: 55.3 deaths per 100,000 live births – nearly triple the figure of 19.1 per 100,000 for White women. Between 2019 and 2020, the mortality rate increased significantly for Black and Hispanic women, but not White mothers.

Researchers affiliated with University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children agreed in an accompanying editorial that more access to neuraxial labor analgesia for vaginal delivery might improve maternal health outcomes and “may be a strategy well worth pursuing in public health policy.”

The intervention is relatively safe and can “alleviate discomfort and distress,” they wrote.

Neuraxial anesthesia in surgical procedures has been shown to decrease the risk for complications like deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, transfusion requirements, and kidney failure, said editorialists Evelina Pankiv, MD; Alan Yang, MSc; and Kazuyoshi Aoyama, MD, PhD.

Benefits potentially could stem from improving blood flow, mitigating hypercoagulation, or reducing surgical stress response. But there are rare risks to consider as well, including hemorrhage, infection, and neurologic injury, they added.

Guglielminotti disclosed grants from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Aoyama reported receiving grants from the Perioperative Services Facilitator Grant Program and Hospital for Sick Children. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of neuraxial analgesia for vaginal delivery is associated with a 14% decreased risk for severe maternal morbidity, in part from a reduction in postpartum hemorrhage, new research shows.

The findings indicate that increasing the use of epidural or combined spinal-epidural analgesia may improve maternal health outcomes, especially for Hispanic, Black, and uninsured women who are less likely than White women to receive these interventions, according to the researchers, who published their findings online in JAMA Network Open.

About 80% of non-Hispanic White women receive neuraxial analgesia during labor in the United States, compared with 70% of non-Hispanic Black women and 65% of Hispanic women, according to birth certificate data. Among women without health insurance, half receive epidurals.  

Programs that inform pregnant women about epidural use, expand Medicaid, and provide in-house obstetric anesthesia teams “may improve patient participation in clinical decision making and access to care,” study author Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, of Columbia University, New York, said in a statement about the research.

Earlier data from France showed that neuraxial analgesia is associated with reduced risk for severe postpartum hemorrhage. To examine the association between labor neuraxial analgesia and severe maternal morbidity in the United States, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed more than 575,000 vaginal deliveries in New York hospitals between 2010 and 2017; about half (47.4%) of the women received epidurals during labor.

The researchers focused on severe maternal morbidity, including 16 complications, such as heart failure and sepsis, and five procedures, including hysterectomy and ventilation.

They also considered patient characteristics and comorbidities and hospital-related factors to identify patients who were at higher risk for injury or death.

Severe maternal morbidity occurred in 1.3% of the women. Of the 7,712 women with severe morbidity, more than one in three (35.6%) experienced postpartum hemorrhage.

The overall incidence of severe maternal morbidity was 1.3% among women who received an epidural injection and 1.4% among those who did not. In a weighted analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of severe maternal morbidity associated with epidurals was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.90).

The study is limited by its observational design and does not prove causation, the authors acknowledged.

“Labor neuraxial analgesia may facilitate early evaluation and management of the third stage of labor to avoid escalation of postpartum hemorrhaging into grave complications and death,” study author Jean Guglielminotti, MD, PhD, an anesthesiologist at Columbia University, said in a statement.
 

Concerning trends

The Department of Health & Human Services has labeled severe maternal morbidity a public health priority. Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show an increase in maternal mortality rates and worsening disparities by race and ethnicity.

According to the CDC, 861 women died of maternal causes in 2020, up from 754 in 2019. The rate of maternal mortality increased from 20.1 to 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births.

For Black women, however, the maternal mortality rate was far higher: 55.3 deaths per 100,000 live births – nearly triple the figure of 19.1 per 100,000 for White women. Between 2019 and 2020, the mortality rate increased significantly for Black and Hispanic women, but not White mothers.

Researchers affiliated with University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children agreed in an accompanying editorial that more access to neuraxial labor analgesia for vaginal delivery might improve maternal health outcomes and “may be a strategy well worth pursuing in public health policy.”

The intervention is relatively safe and can “alleviate discomfort and distress,” they wrote.

Neuraxial anesthesia in surgical procedures has been shown to decrease the risk for complications like deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, transfusion requirements, and kidney failure, said editorialists Evelina Pankiv, MD; Alan Yang, MSc; and Kazuyoshi Aoyama, MD, PhD.

Benefits potentially could stem from improving blood flow, mitigating hypercoagulation, or reducing surgical stress response. But there are rare risks to consider as well, including hemorrhage, infection, and neurologic injury, they added.

Guglielminotti disclosed grants from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Aoyama reported receiving grants from the Perioperative Services Facilitator Grant Program and Hospital for Sick Children. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of neuraxial analgesia for vaginal delivery is associated with a 14% decreased risk for severe maternal morbidity, in part from a reduction in postpartum hemorrhage, new research shows.

The findings indicate that increasing the use of epidural or combined spinal-epidural analgesia may improve maternal health outcomes, especially for Hispanic, Black, and uninsured women who are less likely than White women to receive these interventions, according to the researchers, who published their findings online in JAMA Network Open.

About 80% of non-Hispanic White women receive neuraxial analgesia during labor in the United States, compared with 70% of non-Hispanic Black women and 65% of Hispanic women, according to birth certificate data. Among women without health insurance, half receive epidurals.  

Programs that inform pregnant women about epidural use, expand Medicaid, and provide in-house obstetric anesthesia teams “may improve patient participation in clinical decision making and access to care,” study author Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, of Columbia University, New York, said in a statement about the research.

Earlier data from France showed that neuraxial analgesia is associated with reduced risk for severe postpartum hemorrhage. To examine the association between labor neuraxial analgesia and severe maternal morbidity in the United States, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed more than 575,000 vaginal deliveries in New York hospitals between 2010 and 2017; about half (47.4%) of the women received epidurals during labor.

The researchers focused on severe maternal morbidity, including 16 complications, such as heart failure and sepsis, and five procedures, including hysterectomy and ventilation.

They also considered patient characteristics and comorbidities and hospital-related factors to identify patients who were at higher risk for injury or death.

Severe maternal morbidity occurred in 1.3% of the women. Of the 7,712 women with severe morbidity, more than one in three (35.6%) experienced postpartum hemorrhage.

The overall incidence of severe maternal morbidity was 1.3% among women who received an epidural injection and 1.4% among those who did not. In a weighted analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of severe maternal morbidity associated with epidurals was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.90).

The study is limited by its observational design and does not prove causation, the authors acknowledged.

“Labor neuraxial analgesia may facilitate early evaluation and management of the third stage of labor to avoid escalation of postpartum hemorrhaging into grave complications and death,” study author Jean Guglielminotti, MD, PhD, an anesthesiologist at Columbia University, said in a statement.
 

Concerning trends

The Department of Health & Human Services has labeled severe maternal morbidity a public health priority. Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show an increase in maternal mortality rates and worsening disparities by race and ethnicity.

According to the CDC, 861 women died of maternal causes in 2020, up from 754 in 2019. The rate of maternal mortality increased from 20.1 to 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births.

For Black women, however, the maternal mortality rate was far higher: 55.3 deaths per 100,000 live births – nearly triple the figure of 19.1 per 100,000 for White women. Between 2019 and 2020, the mortality rate increased significantly for Black and Hispanic women, but not White mothers.

Researchers affiliated with University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children agreed in an accompanying editorial that more access to neuraxial labor analgesia for vaginal delivery might improve maternal health outcomes and “may be a strategy well worth pursuing in public health policy.”

The intervention is relatively safe and can “alleviate discomfort and distress,” they wrote.

Neuraxial anesthesia in surgical procedures has been shown to decrease the risk for complications like deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, transfusion requirements, and kidney failure, said editorialists Evelina Pankiv, MD; Alan Yang, MSc; and Kazuyoshi Aoyama, MD, PhD.

Benefits potentially could stem from improving blood flow, mitigating hypercoagulation, or reducing surgical stress response. But there are rare risks to consider as well, including hemorrhage, infection, and neurologic injury, they added.

Guglielminotti disclosed grants from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Aoyama reported receiving grants from the Perioperative Services Facilitator Grant Program and Hospital for Sick Children. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Just relax, stop thinking about it and, more than likely, it will happen.” If ever there was a controversial subject in medicine, especially in reproduction, the relationship between stress and infertility would be high on the list. Who among us has not overheard or even personally shared with an infertility patient that they should try and reduce their stress to improve fertility? The theory is certainly not new. Hippocrates, back in the 5th century B.C., was one of the first to associate a woman’s psychological state with her reproductive potential. His contention was that a physical sign of psychological stress in women (which scholars later dubbed “hysteria”) could result in sterility. In medieval times, a German abbess and mystic named Hildegard of Bingen posited women suffering from melancholy – a condition that we today might call depression – were infertile as a result.

The deeper meaning behind the flippant advice to relax is implicit blame; that is, a woman interprets the link of stress and infertility as a declaration that she is sabotaging reproduction. Not only is this assumption flawed, but it does further damage to a woman’s emotional fragility. To provide the presumption of stress affecting reproduction, a recent survey of over 5,000 infertility patients found, remarkably, 98% considered emotional stress as either a cause or a contributor to infertility, and 31% believed stress was a cause of miscarriage, although racial differences existed (J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021 Apr;38[4]:877-87). This relationship was mostly seen in women who used complementary and alternative medicine, Black women, and those who frequented Internet search engines. Whereas women who had a professional degree, had more infertility insurance coverage, and were nonreligious were less likely to attribute stress to infertility. Intriguingly, the more engaged the physicians, the less patients linked stress with infertility, while the contrary also applied.

The power of stress can be exemplified by the pathophysiology of amenorrhea. Functional hypothalamic amenorrhea is the most common cause of the female athlete triad of secondary amenorrhea in women of childbearing age. It is a reversible disorder caused by stress related to weight loss, excessive exercise and/or traumatic mental experiences (Endocrines. 2021;2:203-11). Stress of infertility has also been demonstrated to be equivalent to a diagnosis of cancer and other major medical morbidities (J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;14[Suppl]:45-52).

A definitive link between stress and infertility is evasive because of the lack of controlled, prospective longitudinal studies and the challenge of reducing variables in the analysis. The question remains which developed initially – the stress or the infertility? Infertility treatment is a physical, emotional, and financial investment. Stress and the duration of infertility are correlative. The additive factor is that poor insurance coverage for costly fertility treatment can not only heighten stress but, concurrently, subject the patient to the risk of exploitation driven by desperation whereby they accept unproven “add-ons” offered with assisted reproductive technologies (ART).

Both acute and chronic stress affect the number of oocytes retrieved and fertilized with ART as well as live birth delivery and birth weights (Fertil Steril. 2001;76:675-87). Men are also affected by stress, which is manifested by decreased libido and impaired semen, further compromised as the duration of infertility continues. The gut-derived hormone ghrelin appears to play a role with stress and reproduction (Endocr Rev. 2017;38:432-67).

As the relationship between stress and infertility is far from proven, there are conflicting study results. Two meta-analyses failed to show any association between stress and the outcomes of ART cycles (Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2763-76; BMJ. 2011;342:d223). In contrast, a recent study suggested stress during infertility treatment was contributed by the variables of low spousal support, financial constraints, and social coercion in the early years of marriage (J Hum Reprod Sci. 2018;11:172-9). Emotional distress was found to be three times greater in women whose families had unrealistic expectations from treatments.

Fortunately, psychotherapy during the ART cycle has demonstrated a benefit in outcomes. Domar revealed psychological support and cognitive behavior therapy resulted in higher pregnancy rates than in the control group (Fertil Steril. 2000;73:805-12). Another recent study appears to support stress reduction improving reproductive potential (Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2018;20[1]:41-7).

Given the evidence provided in this article, it behooves infertility clinics to address baseline (chronic) stress and acute stress (because of infertility) prior to initiating treatment (see Figure). While the definitive answer addressing the impact of stress on reproduction remains unknown, we may share with our patients a definition in which they may find enlightenment, “Stress is trying to control an event in which one is incapable.”

Dr. Mark P Trolice is director of Fertility CARE: The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

“Just relax, stop thinking about it and, more than likely, it will happen.” If ever there was a controversial subject in medicine, especially in reproduction, the relationship between stress and infertility would be high on the list. Who among us has not overheard or even personally shared with an infertility patient that they should try and reduce their stress to improve fertility? The theory is certainly not new. Hippocrates, back in the 5th century B.C., was one of the first to associate a woman’s psychological state with her reproductive potential. His contention was that a physical sign of psychological stress in women (which scholars later dubbed “hysteria”) could result in sterility. In medieval times, a German abbess and mystic named Hildegard of Bingen posited women suffering from melancholy – a condition that we today might call depression – were infertile as a result.

The deeper meaning behind the flippant advice to relax is implicit blame; that is, a woman interprets the link of stress and infertility as a declaration that she is sabotaging reproduction. Not only is this assumption flawed, but it does further damage to a woman’s emotional fragility. To provide the presumption of stress affecting reproduction, a recent survey of over 5,000 infertility patients found, remarkably, 98% considered emotional stress as either a cause or a contributor to infertility, and 31% believed stress was a cause of miscarriage, although racial differences existed (J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021 Apr;38[4]:877-87). This relationship was mostly seen in women who used complementary and alternative medicine, Black women, and those who frequented Internet search engines. Whereas women who had a professional degree, had more infertility insurance coverage, and were nonreligious were less likely to attribute stress to infertility. Intriguingly, the more engaged the physicians, the less patients linked stress with infertility, while the contrary also applied.

The power of stress can be exemplified by the pathophysiology of amenorrhea. Functional hypothalamic amenorrhea is the most common cause of the female athlete triad of secondary amenorrhea in women of childbearing age. It is a reversible disorder caused by stress related to weight loss, excessive exercise and/or traumatic mental experiences (Endocrines. 2021;2:203-11). Stress of infertility has also been demonstrated to be equivalent to a diagnosis of cancer and other major medical morbidities (J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;14[Suppl]:45-52).

A definitive link between stress and infertility is evasive because of the lack of controlled, prospective longitudinal studies and the challenge of reducing variables in the analysis. The question remains which developed initially – the stress or the infertility? Infertility treatment is a physical, emotional, and financial investment. Stress and the duration of infertility are correlative. The additive factor is that poor insurance coverage for costly fertility treatment can not only heighten stress but, concurrently, subject the patient to the risk of exploitation driven by desperation whereby they accept unproven “add-ons” offered with assisted reproductive technologies (ART).

Both acute and chronic stress affect the number of oocytes retrieved and fertilized with ART as well as live birth delivery and birth weights (Fertil Steril. 2001;76:675-87). Men are also affected by stress, which is manifested by decreased libido and impaired semen, further compromised as the duration of infertility continues. The gut-derived hormone ghrelin appears to play a role with stress and reproduction (Endocr Rev. 2017;38:432-67).

As the relationship between stress and infertility is far from proven, there are conflicting study results. Two meta-analyses failed to show any association between stress and the outcomes of ART cycles (Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2763-76; BMJ. 2011;342:d223). In contrast, a recent study suggested stress during infertility treatment was contributed by the variables of low spousal support, financial constraints, and social coercion in the early years of marriage (J Hum Reprod Sci. 2018;11:172-9). Emotional distress was found to be three times greater in women whose families had unrealistic expectations from treatments.

Fortunately, psychotherapy during the ART cycle has demonstrated a benefit in outcomes. Domar revealed psychological support and cognitive behavior therapy resulted in higher pregnancy rates than in the control group (Fertil Steril. 2000;73:805-12). Another recent study appears to support stress reduction improving reproductive potential (Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2018;20[1]:41-7).

Given the evidence provided in this article, it behooves infertility clinics to address baseline (chronic) stress and acute stress (because of infertility) prior to initiating treatment (see Figure). While the definitive answer addressing the impact of stress on reproduction remains unknown, we may share with our patients a definition in which they may find enlightenment, “Stress is trying to control an event in which one is incapable.”

Dr. Mark P Trolice is director of Fertility CARE: The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

“Just relax, stop thinking about it and, more than likely, it will happen.” If ever there was a controversial subject in medicine, especially in reproduction, the relationship between stress and infertility would be high on the list. Who among us has not overheard or even personally shared with an infertility patient that they should try and reduce their stress to improve fertility? The theory is certainly not new. Hippocrates, back in the 5th century B.C., was one of the first to associate a woman’s psychological state with her reproductive potential. His contention was that a physical sign of psychological stress in women (which scholars later dubbed “hysteria”) could result in sterility. In medieval times, a German abbess and mystic named Hildegard of Bingen posited women suffering from melancholy – a condition that we today might call depression – were infertile as a result.

The deeper meaning behind the flippant advice to relax is implicit blame; that is, a woman interprets the link of stress and infertility as a declaration that she is sabotaging reproduction. Not only is this assumption flawed, but it does further damage to a woman’s emotional fragility. To provide the presumption of stress affecting reproduction, a recent survey of over 5,000 infertility patients found, remarkably, 98% considered emotional stress as either a cause or a contributor to infertility, and 31% believed stress was a cause of miscarriage, although racial differences existed (J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021 Apr;38[4]:877-87). This relationship was mostly seen in women who used complementary and alternative medicine, Black women, and those who frequented Internet search engines. Whereas women who had a professional degree, had more infertility insurance coverage, and were nonreligious were less likely to attribute stress to infertility. Intriguingly, the more engaged the physicians, the less patients linked stress with infertility, while the contrary also applied.

The power of stress can be exemplified by the pathophysiology of amenorrhea. Functional hypothalamic amenorrhea is the most common cause of the female athlete triad of secondary amenorrhea in women of childbearing age. It is a reversible disorder caused by stress related to weight loss, excessive exercise and/or traumatic mental experiences (Endocrines. 2021;2:203-11). Stress of infertility has also been demonstrated to be equivalent to a diagnosis of cancer and other major medical morbidities (J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;14[Suppl]:45-52).

A definitive link between stress and infertility is evasive because of the lack of controlled, prospective longitudinal studies and the challenge of reducing variables in the analysis. The question remains which developed initially – the stress or the infertility? Infertility treatment is a physical, emotional, and financial investment. Stress and the duration of infertility are correlative. The additive factor is that poor insurance coverage for costly fertility treatment can not only heighten stress but, concurrently, subject the patient to the risk of exploitation driven by desperation whereby they accept unproven “add-ons” offered with assisted reproductive technologies (ART).

Both acute and chronic stress affect the number of oocytes retrieved and fertilized with ART as well as live birth delivery and birth weights (Fertil Steril. 2001;76:675-87). Men are also affected by stress, which is manifested by decreased libido and impaired semen, further compromised as the duration of infertility continues. The gut-derived hormone ghrelin appears to play a role with stress and reproduction (Endocr Rev. 2017;38:432-67).

As the relationship between stress and infertility is far from proven, there are conflicting study results. Two meta-analyses failed to show any association between stress and the outcomes of ART cycles (Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2763-76; BMJ. 2011;342:d223). In contrast, a recent study suggested stress during infertility treatment was contributed by the variables of low spousal support, financial constraints, and social coercion in the early years of marriage (J Hum Reprod Sci. 2018;11:172-9). Emotional distress was found to be three times greater in women whose families had unrealistic expectations from treatments.

Fortunately, psychotherapy during the ART cycle has demonstrated a benefit in outcomes. Domar revealed psychological support and cognitive behavior therapy resulted in higher pregnancy rates than in the control group (Fertil Steril. 2000;73:805-12). Another recent study appears to support stress reduction improving reproductive potential (Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2018;20[1]:41-7).

Given the evidence provided in this article, it behooves infertility clinics to address baseline (chronic) stress and acute stress (because of infertility) prior to initiating treatment (see Figure). While the definitive answer addressing the impact of stress on reproduction remains unknown, we may share with our patients a definition in which they may find enlightenment, “Stress is trying to control an event in which one is incapable.”

Dr. Mark P Trolice is director of Fertility CARE: The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

A new scoring system proved more accurate than several other available models at predicting the 30-day mortality risk for patients with alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH), according to new data.

The system, called the Mortality Index for Alcohol-Associated Hepatitis (MIAAH), was created by a team of Mayo Clinic researchers, who published their results in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

Among the currently available prognostic models for assessing AH severity are the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD); the Age, serum Bilirubin, International normalized ratio, and serum Creatinine (ABIC) score; the Maddrey Discriminant Function (MDF); and the Glasgow Alcoholic Hepatitis Score (GAHS). However, these models have poor accuracy, with the area under the curve between 0.71 and 0.77.

By comparison, the new model has an accuracy of 86% in predicting 30-day mortality for AH, said coauthor Ashwani K. Singal, MD, MS, professor of medicine at the University of South Dakota Sanford School of Medicine, Sioux Falls.

“It’s a better predictor of the outcome, and that’s what sets it apart,” he told this news organization. “I think providers and patients will benefit.”

He said accuracy in determining the likelihood of death can help clinicians better determine treatment options and prepare patients and their families.

Camille Kezer, MD, a Mayo Clinic resident internist and first author of the paper, said in a statement, “MIAAH also has the advantage of performing well in patients, regardless of whether they’ve been treated with steroids, which makes it generalizable.”
 

Creating and validating the MIAAH

Researchers analyzed the health records of 266 eligible patients diagnosed with AH between 1998 and 2018 at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. The patients collectively had a 30-day mortality rate of 19.2%.

They then studied the effect of several variables, of which the following were found to be significantly associated with mortality: age (P = .002), blood urea nitrogen (P = .003), albumin (P = .01), bilirubin (P = .02), and international normalized ratio (P = .001).

Mayo researchers built the MIAAH model using these variables and found that it was able to achieve a C statistic of 0.86, which translates into its being able to accurately predict mortality more than 86% of the time. When tested in the initial cohort of 266 patients, MIAAH had a significantly superior C statistic compared with several other available models, such as the MELD, MDF, and GAHS, although not for the ABIC.

The researchers then tested the MIAAH model in a validation cohort of 249 patients from health care centers at the University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, and the University of Kansas, Lawrence. In this cohort, the MIAAH’s C statistic decreased to 0.73, which remained significantly more accurate than the MDF but was comparable to that found with the MELD.
 

Helping with transplant decisions

There are no pharmacologic treatments that can reduce 90-day mortality in severe cases of AH, and only a small survival benefit at 30 days has been reported with prednisolone use.

With a shortage of liver donors, many centers still require 6 months of alcohol abstinence for transplant consideration, although exceptions are sometimes made for cases of early transplant.

A model that more accurately predicts who is at the highest risk of dying within a month can help clinicians decide how best to proceed, Dr. Singal said.

Paul Martin, MD, chief of the division of digestive health and liver diseases, Mandel Chair in gastroenterology, and professor of medicine at the University of Miami, told this news organization that the model is potentially important in light of the rising prevalence of AH.

“The numbers of patients with AH are unequivocally increasing and often in young patients,” he noted, presenting difficult choices of who to treat with steroids and who to refer for a transplant.

“This model is certainly timely,” he said. “We need more accuracy in predicting which patients will recover with medical therapy and which patients won’t in the absence of a liver transplant.”

He noted, however, that the study’s retrospective design requires that it’s validated prospectively: “not only looking at the outcome in terms of mortality of patients, but its potential utility in identifying candidates for liver transplantation who are not going to recover on their own.”

He said it was unlikely that the model would replace others, particularly MELD, which is ingrained in practices in the United States and other countries, but may instead have a complementary role.

Dr. Singal, Dr. Kezer, and Dr. Martin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new scoring system proved more accurate than several other available models at predicting the 30-day mortality risk for patients with alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH), according to new data.

The system, called the Mortality Index for Alcohol-Associated Hepatitis (MIAAH), was created by a team of Mayo Clinic researchers, who published their results in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

Among the currently available prognostic models for assessing AH severity are the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD); the Age, serum Bilirubin, International normalized ratio, and serum Creatinine (ABIC) score; the Maddrey Discriminant Function (MDF); and the Glasgow Alcoholic Hepatitis Score (GAHS). However, these models have poor accuracy, with the area under the curve between 0.71 and 0.77.

By comparison, the new model has an accuracy of 86% in predicting 30-day mortality for AH, said coauthor Ashwani K. Singal, MD, MS, professor of medicine at the University of South Dakota Sanford School of Medicine, Sioux Falls.

“It’s a better predictor of the outcome, and that’s what sets it apart,” he told this news organization. “I think providers and patients will benefit.”

He said accuracy in determining the likelihood of death can help clinicians better determine treatment options and prepare patients and their families.

Camille Kezer, MD, a Mayo Clinic resident internist and first author of the paper, said in a statement, “MIAAH also has the advantage of performing well in patients, regardless of whether they’ve been treated with steroids, which makes it generalizable.”
 

Creating and validating the MIAAH

Researchers analyzed the health records of 266 eligible patients diagnosed with AH between 1998 and 2018 at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. The patients collectively had a 30-day mortality rate of 19.2%.

They then studied the effect of several variables, of which the following were found to be significantly associated with mortality: age (P = .002), blood urea nitrogen (P = .003), albumin (P = .01), bilirubin (P = .02), and international normalized ratio (P = .001).

Mayo researchers built the MIAAH model using these variables and found that it was able to achieve a C statistic of 0.86, which translates into its being able to accurately predict mortality more than 86% of the time. When tested in the initial cohort of 266 patients, MIAAH had a significantly superior C statistic compared with several other available models, such as the MELD, MDF, and GAHS, although not for the ABIC.

The researchers then tested the MIAAH model in a validation cohort of 249 patients from health care centers at the University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, and the University of Kansas, Lawrence. In this cohort, the MIAAH’s C statistic decreased to 0.73, which remained significantly more accurate than the MDF but was comparable to that found with the MELD.
 

Helping with transplant decisions

There are no pharmacologic treatments that can reduce 90-day mortality in severe cases of AH, and only a small survival benefit at 30 days has been reported with prednisolone use.

With a shortage of liver donors, many centers still require 6 months of alcohol abstinence for transplant consideration, although exceptions are sometimes made for cases of early transplant.

A model that more accurately predicts who is at the highest risk of dying within a month can help clinicians decide how best to proceed, Dr. Singal said.

Paul Martin, MD, chief of the division of digestive health and liver diseases, Mandel Chair in gastroenterology, and professor of medicine at the University of Miami, told this news organization that the model is potentially important in light of the rising prevalence of AH.

“The numbers of patients with AH are unequivocally increasing and often in young patients,” he noted, presenting difficult choices of who to treat with steroids and who to refer for a transplant.

“This model is certainly timely,” he said. “We need more accuracy in predicting which patients will recover with medical therapy and which patients won’t in the absence of a liver transplant.”

He noted, however, that the study’s retrospective design requires that it’s validated prospectively: “not only looking at the outcome in terms of mortality of patients, but its potential utility in identifying candidates for liver transplantation who are not going to recover on their own.”

He said it was unlikely that the model would replace others, particularly MELD, which is ingrained in practices in the United States and other countries, but may instead have a complementary role.

Dr. Singal, Dr. Kezer, and Dr. Martin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new scoring system proved more accurate than several other available models at predicting the 30-day mortality risk for patients with alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH), according to new data.

The system, called the Mortality Index for Alcohol-Associated Hepatitis (MIAAH), was created by a team of Mayo Clinic researchers, who published their results in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

Among the currently available prognostic models for assessing AH severity are the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD); the Age, serum Bilirubin, International normalized ratio, and serum Creatinine (ABIC) score; the Maddrey Discriminant Function (MDF); and the Glasgow Alcoholic Hepatitis Score (GAHS). However, these models have poor accuracy, with the area under the curve between 0.71 and 0.77.

By comparison, the new model has an accuracy of 86% in predicting 30-day mortality for AH, said coauthor Ashwani K. Singal, MD, MS, professor of medicine at the University of South Dakota Sanford School of Medicine, Sioux Falls.

“It’s a better predictor of the outcome, and that’s what sets it apart,” he told this news organization. “I think providers and patients will benefit.”

He said accuracy in determining the likelihood of death can help clinicians better determine treatment options and prepare patients and their families.

Camille Kezer, MD, a Mayo Clinic resident internist and first author of the paper, said in a statement, “MIAAH also has the advantage of performing well in patients, regardless of whether they’ve been treated with steroids, which makes it generalizable.”
 

Creating and validating the MIAAH

Researchers analyzed the health records of 266 eligible patients diagnosed with AH between 1998 and 2018 at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. The patients collectively had a 30-day mortality rate of 19.2%.

They then studied the effect of several variables, of which the following were found to be significantly associated with mortality: age (P = .002), blood urea nitrogen (P = .003), albumin (P = .01), bilirubin (P = .02), and international normalized ratio (P = .001).

Mayo researchers built the MIAAH model using these variables and found that it was able to achieve a C statistic of 0.86, which translates into its being able to accurately predict mortality more than 86% of the time. When tested in the initial cohort of 266 patients, MIAAH had a significantly superior C statistic compared with several other available models, such as the MELD, MDF, and GAHS, although not for the ABIC.

The researchers then tested the MIAAH model in a validation cohort of 249 patients from health care centers at the University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, and the University of Kansas, Lawrence. In this cohort, the MIAAH’s C statistic decreased to 0.73, which remained significantly more accurate than the MDF but was comparable to that found with the MELD.
 

Helping with transplant decisions

There are no pharmacologic treatments that can reduce 90-day mortality in severe cases of AH, and only a small survival benefit at 30 days has been reported with prednisolone use.

With a shortage of liver donors, many centers still require 6 months of alcohol abstinence for transplant consideration, although exceptions are sometimes made for cases of early transplant.

A model that more accurately predicts who is at the highest risk of dying within a month can help clinicians decide how best to proceed, Dr. Singal said.

Paul Martin, MD, chief of the division of digestive health and liver diseases, Mandel Chair in gastroenterology, and professor of medicine at the University of Miami, told this news organization that the model is potentially important in light of the rising prevalence of AH.

“The numbers of patients with AH are unequivocally increasing and often in young patients,” he noted, presenting difficult choices of who to treat with steroids and who to refer for a transplant.

“This model is certainly timely,” he said. “We need more accuracy in predicting which patients will recover with medical therapy and which patients won’t in the absence of a liver transplant.”

He noted, however, that the study’s retrospective design requires that it’s validated prospectively: “not only looking at the outcome in terms of mortality of patients, but its potential utility in identifying candidates for liver transplantation who are not going to recover on their own.”

He said it was unlikely that the model would replace others, particularly MELD, which is ingrained in practices in the United States and other countries, but may instead have a complementary role.

Dr. Singal, Dr. Kezer, and Dr. Martin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Less than half of women in the United States enter pregnancy in favorable cardiovascular health, new research suggests.

In 2019, among women aged 20 to 44 years with live births in the United States, only 40.2% were in favorable cardiovascular health prior to pregnancy, defined as normal weight, no diabetes, and no hypertension.

Although all regions and states showed a decline in prepregnancy favorable cardiometabolic health, there were significant differences among geographic regions in the country, the authors report. “These data reveal critical deficiencies and geographic disparities in prepregnancy cardiometabolic health,” they conclude.

“One of the things that we know in the U.S. is that the maternal mortality rate has been increasing, and there are significant differences at the state level in both adverse maternal outcomes, such as maternal mortality, as well as adverse pregnancy outcomes,” corresponding author Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MS, FACC, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization.

“These outcomes are often related to health factors that predate pregnancy,” Dr. Khan explained, “and the processes that begin at the very, very beginning of conception are informed by health factors prior to pregnancy, in particular cardiometabolic factors like body mass index or obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes.”

The results were published online on Feb. 14 in a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue of Circulation.
 

Cardiometabolic health factors

Using maternal birth records from live births in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Natality Database between 2016 and 2019, the authors analyzed data on 14,174,625 women with live births aged 20 to 44 years. The majority (81.4%) were 20 to 34 years of age, 22.7% were Hispanic or Latina, and 52.7% were non-Hispanic White.

Favorable cardiometabolic health was defined as a BMI of 18 to 24.9 kg/m2, absence of diabetes, and absence of hypertension.

Although all regions and states experienced a decline in favorable cardiometabolic health during the study period of 2016 to 2019, with a drop overall of 3.2% – from 43.5 to 40.2 per 100 live births – it was especially true of the South and Midwest regions.

In 2019, favorable prepregnancy cardiometabolic health was lowest in the South (38.1%) and Midwest (38.8%) and highest in the West (42.2%) and Northeast (43.6%).

State by state, the lowest prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health was found in Mississippi, at 31.2%, and highest in Utah, at 47.2%.

They also found a correlation between favorable cardiometabolic health and state-level percentages of high-school education or less and enrollment in Medicaid in 2019.

Similar to what has been seen with cardiovascular disease, “we observe that the states with the lowest prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health were in the Southeast United States,” said Dr. Khan, “and similar geographic variation was observed with some more patterns in education and Medicaid coverage for birth, and these were used as proxies for socioeconomic status in those areas.”

Although Dr. Khan notes that the relationships cannot be determined to be causal from this analysis, she said that “it does suggest that upstream social determinants of health are important determinants of cardiometabolic health.”
 

Socioeconomic intervention

Dr. Khan noted that policies at the federal and state level can identify ways to “ensure that individuals who are thinking about pregnancy have access to health care and have access to resources, too, from a broad range of health determinants, including housing stability, food security, as well as access to health care be optimized prior to pregnancy.”

The authors note that this analysis may actually overestimate the prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health, and data on cholesterol, diet, a distinction between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and physical activity were not available.

Only individuals with live births were included, which could result in the elimination of a potentially high-risk group; however, late pregnancy losses represent less than 0.3% of all pregnancies, they say.

The authors conclude that “future research is needed to equitably improve health prior to pregnancy and quantify the potential benefits in cardiovascular disease outcomes for birthing individuals and their offspring.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and American Heart Association Transformational Project Award awarded to Sadiya S. Khan.

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

Less than half of women in the United States enter pregnancy in favorable cardiovascular health, new research suggests.

In 2019, among women aged 20 to 44 years with live births in the United States, only 40.2% were in favorable cardiovascular health prior to pregnancy, defined as normal weight, no diabetes, and no hypertension.

Although all regions and states showed a decline in prepregnancy favorable cardiometabolic health, there were significant differences among geographic regions in the country, the authors report. “These data reveal critical deficiencies and geographic disparities in prepregnancy cardiometabolic health,” they conclude.

“One of the things that we know in the U.S. is that the maternal mortality rate has been increasing, and there are significant differences at the state level in both adverse maternal outcomes, such as maternal mortality, as well as adverse pregnancy outcomes,” corresponding author Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MS, FACC, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization.

“These outcomes are often related to health factors that predate pregnancy,” Dr. Khan explained, “and the processes that begin at the very, very beginning of conception are informed by health factors prior to pregnancy, in particular cardiometabolic factors like body mass index or obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes.”

The results were published online on Feb. 14 in a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue of Circulation.
 

Cardiometabolic health factors

Using maternal birth records from live births in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Natality Database between 2016 and 2019, the authors analyzed data on 14,174,625 women with live births aged 20 to 44 years. The majority (81.4%) were 20 to 34 years of age, 22.7% were Hispanic or Latina, and 52.7% were non-Hispanic White.

Favorable cardiometabolic health was defined as a BMI of 18 to 24.9 kg/m2, absence of diabetes, and absence of hypertension.

Although all regions and states experienced a decline in favorable cardiometabolic health during the study period of 2016 to 2019, with a drop overall of 3.2% – from 43.5 to 40.2 per 100 live births – it was especially true of the South and Midwest regions.

In 2019, favorable prepregnancy cardiometabolic health was lowest in the South (38.1%) and Midwest (38.8%) and highest in the West (42.2%) and Northeast (43.6%).

State by state, the lowest prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health was found in Mississippi, at 31.2%, and highest in Utah, at 47.2%.

They also found a correlation between favorable cardiometabolic health and state-level percentages of high-school education or less and enrollment in Medicaid in 2019.

Similar to what has been seen with cardiovascular disease, “we observe that the states with the lowest prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health were in the Southeast United States,” said Dr. Khan, “and similar geographic variation was observed with some more patterns in education and Medicaid coverage for birth, and these were used as proxies for socioeconomic status in those areas.”

Although Dr. Khan notes that the relationships cannot be determined to be causal from this analysis, she said that “it does suggest that upstream social determinants of health are important determinants of cardiometabolic health.”
 

Socioeconomic intervention

Dr. Khan noted that policies at the federal and state level can identify ways to “ensure that individuals who are thinking about pregnancy have access to health care and have access to resources, too, from a broad range of health determinants, including housing stability, food security, as well as access to health care be optimized prior to pregnancy.”

The authors note that this analysis may actually overestimate the prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health, and data on cholesterol, diet, a distinction between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and physical activity were not available.

Only individuals with live births were included, which could result in the elimination of a potentially high-risk group; however, late pregnancy losses represent less than 0.3% of all pregnancies, they say.

The authors conclude that “future research is needed to equitably improve health prior to pregnancy and quantify the potential benefits in cardiovascular disease outcomes for birthing individuals and their offspring.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and American Heart Association Transformational Project Award awarded to Sadiya S. Khan.

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

Less than half of women in the United States enter pregnancy in favorable cardiovascular health, new research suggests.

In 2019, among women aged 20 to 44 years with live births in the United States, only 40.2% were in favorable cardiovascular health prior to pregnancy, defined as normal weight, no diabetes, and no hypertension.

Although all regions and states showed a decline in prepregnancy favorable cardiometabolic health, there were significant differences among geographic regions in the country, the authors report. “These data reveal critical deficiencies and geographic disparities in prepregnancy cardiometabolic health,” they conclude.

“One of the things that we know in the U.S. is that the maternal mortality rate has been increasing, and there are significant differences at the state level in both adverse maternal outcomes, such as maternal mortality, as well as adverse pregnancy outcomes,” corresponding author Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MS, FACC, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, told this news organization.

“These outcomes are often related to health factors that predate pregnancy,” Dr. Khan explained, “and the processes that begin at the very, very beginning of conception are informed by health factors prior to pregnancy, in particular cardiometabolic factors like body mass index or obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes.”

The results were published online on Feb. 14 in a special “Go Red for Women” spotlight issue of Circulation.
 

Cardiometabolic health factors

Using maternal birth records from live births in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Natality Database between 2016 and 2019, the authors analyzed data on 14,174,625 women with live births aged 20 to 44 years. The majority (81.4%) were 20 to 34 years of age, 22.7% were Hispanic or Latina, and 52.7% were non-Hispanic White.

Favorable cardiometabolic health was defined as a BMI of 18 to 24.9 kg/m2, absence of diabetes, and absence of hypertension.

Although all regions and states experienced a decline in favorable cardiometabolic health during the study period of 2016 to 2019, with a drop overall of 3.2% – from 43.5 to 40.2 per 100 live births – it was especially true of the South and Midwest regions.

In 2019, favorable prepregnancy cardiometabolic health was lowest in the South (38.1%) and Midwest (38.8%) and highest in the West (42.2%) and Northeast (43.6%).

State by state, the lowest prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health was found in Mississippi, at 31.2%, and highest in Utah, at 47.2%.

They also found a correlation between favorable cardiometabolic health and state-level percentages of high-school education or less and enrollment in Medicaid in 2019.

Similar to what has been seen with cardiovascular disease, “we observe that the states with the lowest prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health were in the Southeast United States,” said Dr. Khan, “and similar geographic variation was observed with some more patterns in education and Medicaid coverage for birth, and these were used as proxies for socioeconomic status in those areas.”

Although Dr. Khan notes that the relationships cannot be determined to be causal from this analysis, she said that “it does suggest that upstream social determinants of health are important determinants of cardiometabolic health.”
 

Socioeconomic intervention

Dr. Khan noted that policies at the federal and state level can identify ways to “ensure that individuals who are thinking about pregnancy have access to health care and have access to resources, too, from a broad range of health determinants, including housing stability, food security, as well as access to health care be optimized prior to pregnancy.”

The authors note that this analysis may actually overestimate the prevalence of favorable cardiometabolic health, and data on cholesterol, diet, a distinction between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and physical activity were not available.

Only individuals with live births were included, which could result in the elimination of a potentially high-risk group; however, late pregnancy losses represent less than 0.3% of all pregnancies, they say.

The authors conclude that “future research is needed to equitably improve health prior to pregnancy and quantify the potential benefits in cardiovascular disease outcomes for birthing individuals and their offspring.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and American Heart Association Transformational Project Award awarded to Sadiya S. Khan.

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

Potential immigrants to the United States from countries with high rates of tuberculosis tend to follow through with TB tests and treatment before they travel, and their compliance helps control TB spread, according to a study published online Feb. 16, 2022, in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

“In our study of U.S.-bound immigrants in Vietnam during their required overseas medical examination prior to migration to the United States, we identified a high proportion of U.S.-bound immigrants with latent TB infection (LTBI) and offered them preventive TB treatment,” coauthor Christina R. Phares, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Overall, 88% of those who started treatment completed their treatment,” she said in an interview. “This is a higher treatment completion rate than has been found in many postarrival strategies in the U.S.”

“This study demonstrated that providing LTBI testing and treatment during the overseas medical examination is feasible, yields high initiation and completion rates, and should be considered as a viable strategy to address LTBI in U.S.-bound migrants,” lead author Amera Khan, DrPH, of the Stop TB Partnership in Geneva, said in an interview.

The research team began the 1-year Preventing Tuberculosis Overseas Pilot Study (PTOPS) in Vietnam in 2018 among applicants for U.S. immigrant visas. Study participants were 12 years of age or older and were undergoing required medical examinations, which included the interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) tuberculosis blood test.

Eligible IGRA-positive participants who planned to complete their LTBI treatment before traveling to the United States were offered free 3HP (12 weekly doses of isoniazid and rifapentine). Of 5,311 people recruited into the study, 2,438 (46%) enrolled; 2,276 had an IGRA processed; and 484 (21%) tested positive. Of the 452 participants eligible for 3HP, 304 (67%) began, and 268 (88%) completed, their treatment.
 

Preimmigration strategies needed

Worldwide, TB is now the second-leading cause of death by infectious disease, behind COVID-19, Dr. Khan said. The U.S. has seen a slow, steady decline in incidence with an increasing proportion of TB found in people born outside the country.

“Approximately 70% of U.S. TB cases occur in persons born outside the U.S., with the vast majority due to reactivation of latent TB infection acquired prior to their travel to the U.S.,” she said. “To progress towards elimination TB in the U.S., we need innovative strategies to address the high burden of LTBI among immigrants.”

Jonathan E. Golub, PhD, MPH, an infectious diseases specialist and a professor of medicine, epidemiology, and international health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, was not involved in the study but welcomed its results. “This study clearly shows that a predeparture screening and treatment strategy for LTBI can be successfully implemented,” he told this news organization. “While the study highlights areas of the LTBI care cascade that need improvement, the message is clear that predeparture screening and treatment has the potential to significantly impact TB rates among non–U.S.-born persons in the U.S.”

Dr. Golub went on to explain that new technologies for LTBI screening have been underutilized. “New, shorter LTBI treatment regimens provide more feasible choices for both providers and people applying for immigration visas. Combining IGRA with 3HP creates an efficient and effective strategy. This strategy had not been tested prior to the study and the results are exciting.”

Dr. Golub highlighted one important aspect of the study: that many participants started treatment in Vietnam and completed it in the U.S. “This shows that such a protocol provides needed flexibility and can be followed by the health care systems and patients,” Dr. Golub said. “If TB is to ever be eliminated in the U.S., reducing TB among non–U.S.-born persons must be prioritized.”

The rifapentine used in the study was donated by Sanofi, the drug’s manufacturer. Dr. Khan, Dr. Phares, and Dr. Golub reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was supported by a CDC Cooperative Agreement.

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

Potential immigrants to the United States from countries with high rates of tuberculosis tend to follow through with TB tests and treatment before they travel, and their compliance helps control TB spread, according to a study published online Feb. 16, 2022, in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

“In our study of U.S.-bound immigrants in Vietnam during their required overseas medical examination prior to migration to the United States, we identified a high proportion of U.S.-bound immigrants with latent TB infection (LTBI) and offered them preventive TB treatment,” coauthor Christina R. Phares, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Overall, 88% of those who started treatment completed their treatment,” she said in an interview. “This is a higher treatment completion rate than has been found in many postarrival strategies in the U.S.”

“This study demonstrated that providing LTBI testing and treatment during the overseas medical examination is feasible, yields high initiation and completion rates, and should be considered as a viable strategy to address LTBI in U.S.-bound migrants,” lead author Amera Khan, DrPH, of the Stop TB Partnership in Geneva, said in an interview.

The research team began the 1-year Preventing Tuberculosis Overseas Pilot Study (PTOPS) in Vietnam in 2018 among applicants for U.S. immigrant visas. Study participants were 12 years of age or older and were undergoing required medical examinations, which included the interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) tuberculosis blood test.

Eligible IGRA-positive participants who planned to complete their LTBI treatment before traveling to the United States were offered free 3HP (12 weekly doses of isoniazid and rifapentine). Of 5,311 people recruited into the study, 2,438 (46%) enrolled; 2,276 had an IGRA processed; and 484 (21%) tested positive. Of the 452 participants eligible for 3HP, 304 (67%) began, and 268 (88%) completed, their treatment.
 

Preimmigration strategies needed

Worldwide, TB is now the second-leading cause of death by infectious disease, behind COVID-19, Dr. Khan said. The U.S. has seen a slow, steady decline in incidence with an increasing proportion of TB found in people born outside the country.

“Approximately 70% of U.S. TB cases occur in persons born outside the U.S., with the vast majority due to reactivation of latent TB infection acquired prior to their travel to the U.S.,” she said. “To progress towards elimination TB in the U.S., we need innovative strategies to address the high burden of LTBI among immigrants.”

Jonathan E. Golub, PhD, MPH, an infectious diseases specialist and a professor of medicine, epidemiology, and international health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, was not involved in the study but welcomed its results. “This study clearly shows that a predeparture screening and treatment strategy for LTBI can be successfully implemented,” he told this news organization. “While the study highlights areas of the LTBI care cascade that need improvement, the message is clear that predeparture screening and treatment has the potential to significantly impact TB rates among non–U.S.-born persons in the U.S.”

Dr. Golub went on to explain that new technologies for LTBI screening have been underutilized. “New, shorter LTBI treatment regimens provide more feasible choices for both providers and people applying for immigration visas. Combining IGRA with 3HP creates an efficient and effective strategy. This strategy had not been tested prior to the study and the results are exciting.”

Dr. Golub highlighted one important aspect of the study: that many participants started treatment in Vietnam and completed it in the U.S. “This shows that such a protocol provides needed flexibility and can be followed by the health care systems and patients,” Dr. Golub said. “If TB is to ever be eliminated in the U.S., reducing TB among non–U.S.-born persons must be prioritized.”

The rifapentine used in the study was donated by Sanofi, the drug’s manufacturer. Dr. Khan, Dr. Phares, and Dr. Golub reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was supported by a CDC Cooperative Agreement.

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

Potential immigrants to the United States from countries with high rates of tuberculosis tend to follow through with TB tests and treatment before they travel, and their compliance helps control TB spread, according to a study published online Feb. 16, 2022, in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

“In our study of U.S.-bound immigrants in Vietnam during their required overseas medical examination prior to migration to the United States, we identified a high proportion of U.S.-bound immigrants with latent TB infection (LTBI) and offered them preventive TB treatment,” coauthor Christina R. Phares, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Overall, 88% of those who started treatment completed their treatment,” she said in an interview. “This is a higher treatment completion rate than has been found in many postarrival strategies in the U.S.”

“This study demonstrated that providing LTBI testing and treatment during the overseas medical examination is feasible, yields high initiation and completion rates, and should be considered as a viable strategy to address LTBI in U.S.-bound migrants,” lead author Amera Khan, DrPH, of the Stop TB Partnership in Geneva, said in an interview.

The research team began the 1-year Preventing Tuberculosis Overseas Pilot Study (PTOPS) in Vietnam in 2018 among applicants for U.S. immigrant visas. Study participants were 12 years of age or older and were undergoing required medical examinations, which included the interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) tuberculosis blood test.

Eligible IGRA-positive participants who planned to complete their LTBI treatment before traveling to the United States were offered free 3HP (12 weekly doses of isoniazid and rifapentine). Of 5,311 people recruited into the study, 2,438 (46%) enrolled; 2,276 had an IGRA processed; and 484 (21%) tested positive. Of the 452 participants eligible for 3HP, 304 (67%) began, and 268 (88%) completed, their treatment.
 

Preimmigration strategies needed

Worldwide, TB is now the second-leading cause of death by infectious disease, behind COVID-19, Dr. Khan said. The U.S. has seen a slow, steady decline in incidence with an increasing proportion of TB found in people born outside the country.

“Approximately 70% of U.S. TB cases occur in persons born outside the U.S., with the vast majority due to reactivation of latent TB infection acquired prior to their travel to the U.S.,” she said. “To progress towards elimination TB in the U.S., we need innovative strategies to address the high burden of LTBI among immigrants.”

Jonathan E. Golub, PhD, MPH, an infectious diseases specialist and a professor of medicine, epidemiology, and international health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, was not involved in the study but welcomed its results. “This study clearly shows that a predeparture screening and treatment strategy for LTBI can be successfully implemented,” he told this news organization. “While the study highlights areas of the LTBI care cascade that need improvement, the message is clear that predeparture screening and treatment has the potential to significantly impact TB rates among non–U.S.-born persons in the U.S.”

Dr. Golub went on to explain that new technologies for LTBI screening have been underutilized. “New, shorter LTBI treatment regimens provide more feasible choices for both providers and people applying for immigration visas. Combining IGRA with 3HP creates an efficient and effective strategy. This strategy had not been tested prior to the study and the results are exciting.”

Dr. Golub highlighted one important aspect of the study: that many participants started treatment in Vietnam and completed it in the U.S. “This shows that such a protocol provides needed flexibility and can be followed by the health care systems and patients,” Dr. Golub said. “If TB is to ever be eliminated in the U.S., reducing TB among non–U.S.-born persons must be prioritized.”

The rifapentine used in the study was donated by Sanofi, the drug’s manufacturer. Dr. Khan, Dr. Phares, and Dr. Golub reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was supported by a CDC Cooperative Agreement.

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

More than half of abortions in the United States are now done with pills rather than surgery, according to a report from the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

A survey of abortion providers showed that 54% of all U.S. abortions were done with medication in 2020, marking the first time the proportion of medication abortions topped 50%, Guttmacher said.

In 2017, the last time such a survey was done, 39% of abortions were performed by medication, Guttmacher said. The organization said 24% of abortions were done with medication in 2011 and 6% in 2001, the year after the FDA approved the pills.

The 54% estimate is based on early findings, Guttmacher said in a news release. It said that “final estimates will be released in late 2022 and the proportion for medication abortion use is not expected to fall below 50%.”

Rachel Jones, PhD, a Guttmacher researcher, said the higher use of abortion pills may be linked to increases in telemedicine because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the FDA’s decision last year to allow the mailing of abortion pills to patients, the Associated Press reported. Those changes mean women can now consult with a doctor online, receive the pills by mail, and complete the abortion at home.

Abortion pills are recommended for the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, though research shows they can be safe in some cases after 10 weeks, Guttmacher said. Patients take the pill mifepristone, which blocks a hormone needed for pregnancy to continue, and a few days later take the pill misoprostol, which causes cramping that empties the womb.

“The introduction and availability of medication abortion has proven to be a game changer in expanding abortion care in the United States, and it will likely be an even more important option for people to obtain an abortion as many states continue to pass legislation to bar or restrict abortion access,” Guttmacher said in the news release.

Arizona, Arkansas, and Texas have banned the mailing of abortion pills. Similar bans were approved in Montana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota but were blocked in the courts, Guttmacher said.

Sixteen state legislatures have proposed bans or restrictions on medication-induced abortion this year, while 32 states require this type of abortion to be prescribed by doctors.

In Texas, orders for abortion pills increased sharply after the state legislature approved a highly restrictive abortion law, Politico reported, citing a study in The Journal of the American Medical Association.

Orders went up 1,180% in the first week after the Texas law took effect in September, researchers said. Orders dipped somewhat in later weeks but remained 175% higher than before the Texas law took effect.

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

More than half of abortions in the United States are now done with pills rather than surgery, according to a report from the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

A survey of abortion providers showed that 54% of all U.S. abortions were done with medication in 2020, marking the first time the proportion of medication abortions topped 50%, Guttmacher said.

In 2017, the last time such a survey was done, 39% of abortions were performed by medication, Guttmacher said. The organization said 24% of abortions were done with medication in 2011 and 6% in 2001, the year after the FDA approved the pills.

The 54% estimate is based on early findings, Guttmacher said in a news release. It said that “final estimates will be released in late 2022 and the proportion for medication abortion use is not expected to fall below 50%.”

Rachel Jones, PhD, a Guttmacher researcher, said the higher use of abortion pills may be linked to increases in telemedicine because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the FDA’s decision last year to allow the mailing of abortion pills to patients, the Associated Press reported. Those changes mean women can now consult with a doctor online, receive the pills by mail, and complete the abortion at home.

Abortion pills are recommended for the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, though research shows they can be safe in some cases after 10 weeks, Guttmacher said. Patients take the pill mifepristone, which blocks a hormone needed for pregnancy to continue, and a few days later take the pill misoprostol, which causes cramping that empties the womb.

“The introduction and availability of medication abortion has proven to be a game changer in expanding abortion care in the United States, and it will likely be an even more important option for people to obtain an abortion as many states continue to pass legislation to bar or restrict abortion access,” Guttmacher said in the news release.

Arizona, Arkansas, and Texas have banned the mailing of abortion pills. Similar bans were approved in Montana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota but were blocked in the courts, Guttmacher said.

Sixteen state legislatures have proposed bans or restrictions on medication-induced abortion this year, while 32 states require this type of abortion to be prescribed by doctors.

In Texas, orders for abortion pills increased sharply after the state legislature approved a highly restrictive abortion law, Politico reported, citing a study in The Journal of the American Medical Association.

Orders went up 1,180% in the first week after the Texas law took effect in September, researchers said. Orders dipped somewhat in later weeks but remained 175% higher than before the Texas law took effect.

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

More than half of abortions in the United States are now done with pills rather than surgery, according to a report from the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.

A survey of abortion providers showed that 54% of all U.S. abortions were done with medication in 2020, marking the first time the proportion of medication abortions topped 50%, Guttmacher said.

In 2017, the last time such a survey was done, 39% of abortions were performed by medication, Guttmacher said. The organization said 24% of abortions were done with medication in 2011 and 6% in 2001, the year after the FDA approved the pills.

The 54% estimate is based on early findings, Guttmacher said in a news release. It said that “final estimates will be released in late 2022 and the proportion for medication abortion use is not expected to fall below 50%.”

Rachel Jones, PhD, a Guttmacher researcher, said the higher use of abortion pills may be linked to increases in telemedicine because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the FDA’s decision last year to allow the mailing of abortion pills to patients, the Associated Press reported. Those changes mean women can now consult with a doctor online, receive the pills by mail, and complete the abortion at home.

Abortion pills are recommended for the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, though research shows they can be safe in some cases after 10 weeks, Guttmacher said. Patients take the pill mifepristone, which blocks a hormone needed for pregnancy to continue, and a few days later take the pill misoprostol, which causes cramping that empties the womb.

“The introduction and availability of medication abortion has proven to be a game changer in expanding abortion care in the United States, and it will likely be an even more important option for people to obtain an abortion as many states continue to pass legislation to bar or restrict abortion access,” Guttmacher said in the news release.

Arizona, Arkansas, and Texas have banned the mailing of abortion pills. Similar bans were approved in Montana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota but were blocked in the courts, Guttmacher said.

Sixteen state legislatures have proposed bans or restrictions on medication-induced abortion this year, while 32 states require this type of abortion to be prescribed by doctors.

In Texas, orders for abortion pills increased sharply after the state legislature approved a highly restrictive abortion law, Politico reported, citing a study in The Journal of the American Medical Association.

Orders went up 1,180% in the first week after the Texas law took effect in September, researchers said. Orders dipped somewhat in later weeks but remained 175% higher than before the Texas law took effect.

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

LAS VEGAS – How do you know when a patient is a candidate for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT)?

In the opinion of Mark S. George, MD, it depends on the level of treatment resistance, other treatments the person may be receiving for severe depression or bipolar disorder, and the level of acuity.

“Acute ECT is also useful for catatonia that does not resolve with benzodiazepines, and it also works well for acute suicidality,” Dr. George, distinguished professor of psychiatry, radiology, and neurology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “The other reason you would go straight to ECT would be if someone has had good prior ECT response.”

ECT is the oldest biological psychiatry therapy, a treatment that he characterized as “our most effective treatment for depression. It is lifesaving. Some studies suggests that ECT is effective in Parkinson’s disease and schizophrenia. Antidepressant effects generally take 2-3 weeks, but quicker responses are sometimes seen, especially in patients with bipolar depression.”

In the past 20 years of research studies involving ECT, investigators have discovered that a generalized seizure of adequate duration is necessary for adequate antidepressant effects; reduced therapeutic effects are seen with parietal placement, meaning that proper scalp placement matters; a dose titration over the 12 treatments improves efficacy, and smaller pulse widths are more effective and may result in fewer toxic side effects. “ECT is still relatively spatially crude compared with the other brain stimulation treatments,” said Dr. George, editor-in-chief of Brain Stimulation. “It’s also invasive, requiring repeated anesthesia, and sometimes has possible side effects including impacts on short-term memory.”

An emerging adjunct to ECT is cervical invasive vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy, in which mild electrical pulses applied to the left vagus nerve in the neck send signals to the brain. “Surgeons wrap a wire around the vagus nerve and connect the wire to a generator which is embedded in the chest wall,” Dr. George explained. “The generator sends out a signal through the vagus nerve intermittently. You can program how it does that.”

A device from LivaNova known as the VNS Pulse Model 102 Generator was granted clearance for depression based on a comparative study, but in the absence of class I evidence. The generator is about the size of a quarter, is embedded under the skin, and its battery lasts for 8-10 years. “Patients are given a static magnet to use to turn the device off if they’re having side effects, as a safety precaution,” said Dr. George, a staff physician at the Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center in Charleston. “The side effects are mainly stimulation-based and typically decrease over time. There is a low rate of treatment discontinuation and no signal for treatment-related emergence of suicidal ideation/behavior. Sometimes you can get emergent mania or hypermania, but it’s rare. It’s pretty safe, but the insurance companies have been very slow to pay. You only get about 30% remission, this takes several months to years to achieve, and there’s no way to tell who’s going to respond before you place the device.”

However, results from a 5-year observational study of patients with treatment-resistant depression who were treated at 61 sites with VNS or treatment as usual found that the antidepressant effects built over time compared with treatment as usual (Am J Psychiatry 2017;174[7]:640-8). “There is remarkable durability but it’s not very fast,” he said. “It’s three months before you start seeing any differences.”

According to Dr. George, data from an informal registry of Medicare patients who received VNS treatment “did so much better” than untreated patients. “They didn’t need as much ECT and didn’t require as many hospitalizations,” he said. “They weren’t changing medications nearly as much. They found that VNS was saving money and saving people’s lives.” As a result, in September of 2019 LivaNova launched a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, blinded trial of subjects implanted with VNS therapy, called RECOVER. Active treatment and no stimulation control are randomized at least 2 weeks after implantation and observed for 12 months. The study is ongoing with results expected in 2022 or 2023.

Dr. George disclosed that he is a paid consultant for Neurolief, Microtransponder, and Sooma and that he has been a paid consultant for GSK, Cyberonics, NeuroPace, and Jazz. He is an unpaid consultant to Brainsway, Neuronetics, Neostim, Neosync, and Magnus Medical.

LAS VEGAS – How do you know when a patient is a candidate for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT)?

In the opinion of Mark S. George, MD, it depends on the level of treatment resistance, other treatments the person may be receiving for severe depression or bipolar disorder, and the level of acuity.

“Acute ECT is also useful for catatonia that does not resolve with benzodiazepines, and it also works well for acute suicidality,” Dr. George, distinguished professor of psychiatry, radiology, and neurology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “The other reason you would go straight to ECT would be if someone has had good prior ECT response.”

ECT is the oldest biological psychiatry therapy, a treatment that he characterized as “our most effective treatment for depression. It is lifesaving. Some studies suggests that ECT is effective in Parkinson’s disease and schizophrenia. Antidepressant effects generally take 2-3 weeks, but quicker responses are sometimes seen, especially in patients with bipolar depression.”

In the past 20 years of research studies involving ECT, investigators have discovered that a generalized seizure of adequate duration is necessary for adequate antidepressant effects; reduced therapeutic effects are seen with parietal placement, meaning that proper scalp placement matters; a dose titration over the 12 treatments improves efficacy, and smaller pulse widths are more effective and may result in fewer toxic side effects. “ECT is still relatively spatially crude compared with the other brain stimulation treatments,” said Dr. George, editor-in-chief of Brain Stimulation. “It’s also invasive, requiring repeated anesthesia, and sometimes has possible side effects including impacts on short-term memory.”

An emerging adjunct to ECT is cervical invasive vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy, in which mild electrical pulses applied to the left vagus nerve in the neck send signals to the brain. “Surgeons wrap a wire around the vagus nerve and connect the wire to a generator which is embedded in the chest wall,” Dr. George explained. “The generator sends out a signal through the vagus nerve intermittently. You can program how it does that.”

A device from LivaNova known as the VNS Pulse Model 102 Generator was granted clearance for depression based on a comparative study, but in the absence of class I evidence. The generator is about the size of a quarter, is embedded under the skin, and its battery lasts for 8-10 years. “Patients are given a static magnet to use to turn the device off if they’re having side effects, as a safety precaution,” said Dr. George, a staff physician at the Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center in Charleston. “The side effects are mainly stimulation-based and typically decrease over time. There is a low rate of treatment discontinuation and no signal for treatment-related emergence of suicidal ideation/behavior. Sometimes you can get emergent mania or hypermania, but it’s rare. It’s pretty safe, but the insurance companies have been very slow to pay. You only get about 30% remission, this takes several months to years to achieve, and there’s no way to tell who’s going to respond before you place the device.”

However, results from a 5-year observational study of patients with treatment-resistant depression who were treated at 61 sites with VNS or treatment as usual found that the antidepressant effects built over time compared with treatment as usual (Am J Psychiatry 2017;174[7]:640-8). “There is remarkable durability but it’s not very fast,” he said. “It’s three months before you start seeing any differences.”

According to Dr. George, data from an informal registry of Medicare patients who received VNS treatment “did so much better” than untreated patients. “They didn’t need as much ECT and didn’t require as many hospitalizations,” he said. “They weren’t changing medications nearly as much. They found that VNS was saving money and saving people’s lives.” As a result, in September of 2019 LivaNova launched a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, blinded trial of subjects implanted with VNS therapy, called RECOVER. Active treatment and no stimulation control are randomized at least 2 weeks after implantation and observed for 12 months. The study is ongoing with results expected in 2022 or 2023.

Dr. George disclosed that he is a paid consultant for Neurolief, Microtransponder, and Sooma and that he has been a paid consultant for GSK, Cyberonics, NeuroPace, and Jazz. He is an unpaid consultant to Brainsway, Neuronetics, Neostim, Neosync, and Magnus Medical.

LAS VEGAS – How do you know when a patient is a candidate for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT)?

In the opinion of Mark S. George, MD, it depends on the level of treatment resistance, other treatments the person may be receiving for severe depression or bipolar disorder, and the level of acuity.

“Acute ECT is also useful for catatonia that does not resolve with benzodiazepines, and it also works well for acute suicidality,” Dr. George, distinguished professor of psychiatry, radiology, and neurology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “The other reason you would go straight to ECT would be if someone has had good prior ECT response.”

ECT is the oldest biological psychiatry therapy, a treatment that he characterized as “our most effective treatment for depression. It is lifesaving. Some studies suggests that ECT is effective in Parkinson’s disease and schizophrenia. Antidepressant effects generally take 2-3 weeks, but quicker responses are sometimes seen, especially in patients with bipolar depression.”

In the past 20 years of research studies involving ECT, investigators have discovered that a generalized seizure of adequate duration is necessary for adequate antidepressant effects; reduced therapeutic effects are seen with parietal placement, meaning that proper scalp placement matters; a dose titration over the 12 treatments improves efficacy, and smaller pulse widths are more effective and may result in fewer toxic side effects. “ECT is still relatively spatially crude compared with the other brain stimulation treatments,” said Dr. George, editor-in-chief of Brain Stimulation. “It’s also invasive, requiring repeated anesthesia, and sometimes has possible side effects including impacts on short-term memory.”

An emerging adjunct to ECT is cervical invasive vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy, in which mild electrical pulses applied to the left vagus nerve in the neck send signals to the brain. “Surgeons wrap a wire around the vagus nerve and connect the wire to a generator which is embedded in the chest wall,” Dr. George explained. “The generator sends out a signal through the vagus nerve intermittently. You can program how it does that.”

A device from LivaNova known as the VNS Pulse Model 102 Generator was granted clearance for depression based on a comparative study, but in the absence of class I evidence. The generator is about the size of a quarter, is embedded under the skin, and its battery lasts for 8-10 years. “Patients are given a static magnet to use to turn the device off if they’re having side effects, as a safety precaution,” said Dr. George, a staff physician at the Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center in Charleston. “The side effects are mainly stimulation-based and typically decrease over time. There is a low rate of treatment discontinuation and no signal for treatment-related emergence of suicidal ideation/behavior. Sometimes you can get emergent mania or hypermania, but it’s rare. It’s pretty safe, but the insurance companies have been very slow to pay. You only get about 30% remission, this takes several months to years to achieve, and there’s no way to tell who’s going to respond before you place the device.”

However, results from a 5-year observational study of patients with treatment-resistant depression who were treated at 61 sites with VNS or treatment as usual found that the antidepressant effects built over time compared with treatment as usual (Am J Psychiatry 2017;174[7]:640-8). “There is remarkable durability but it’s not very fast,” he said. “It’s three months before you start seeing any differences.”

According to Dr. George, data from an informal registry of Medicare patients who received VNS treatment “did so much better” than untreated patients. “They didn’t need as much ECT and didn’t require as many hospitalizations,” he said. “They weren’t changing medications nearly as much. They found that VNS was saving money and saving people’s lives.” As a result, in September of 2019 LivaNova launched a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, blinded trial of subjects implanted with VNS therapy, called RECOVER. Active treatment and no stimulation control are randomized at least 2 weeks after implantation and observed for 12 months. The study is ongoing with results expected in 2022 or 2023.

Dr. George disclosed that he is a paid consultant for Neurolief, Microtransponder, and Sooma and that he has been a paid consultant for GSK, Cyberonics, NeuroPace, and Jazz. He is an unpaid consultant to Brainsway, Neuronetics, Neostim, Neosync, and Magnus Medical.

The study covered in this summary was published in Research Square as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Focal cognitive deficits are more prevalent in hospitalized patients than ambulatory patients.
• Cognitive performance is related to neuropsychiatric symptoms in ambulatory but not hospitalized patients.
• Objective neurocognitive measures can supply crucial information to guide clinical decisions regarding the need for further imaging or neurologic workup and should be included as endpoints in clinical trials.

Why this matters

• Cognitive complaints commonly occur in patients convalescing from COVID-19, although their cause is frequently unclear.
• The researchers evaluated factors that play a role in cognitive impairment in ambulatory versus hospitalized patients during the subacute stage of recovery.
• These results underscore the significance of assessing both subjective and objective complaints in ascertaining the prevalence of cognitive impairment in recovering patients and research participants.
• The drivers of cognitive complaints are likely different in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in comparison with ambulatory COVID-19 patients, so it’s important to understand these factors in making treatment decisions.
• Biopsychosocial factors appear to be a powerful driver of cognitive complaints in recovering ambulatory patients. They can be treated with interventions targeting anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, and pain, which may prove to be the most efficient and cost-effective approach to prevent disability in individuals with mild manifestations of COVID-19.
• Objective neurocognitive deficits were more prevalent in hospitalized patients – a marker of greater disease severity – with mainly deficits in memory and psychomotor speed. Factors that contribute to focal cognitive deficits in these individuals are emerging and represent a noteworthy realm for future investigation.

Study design

• The trial prospectively recruited patients from a hospital-wide registry at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
• All patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection on a real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain-reaction assay between June 2020 and March 2021.
• Patients were 18 years of age or older.
• The researchers excluded those with a pre-existing major neurocognitive disorder.
• To participate, patients needed access to a desktop or laptop computer to complete a test and survey.
• They responded to a comprehensive neuropsychological questionnaire and a computerized cognitive screen using a remote telemedicine platform.
• The researchers compared rates of subjective and objective neuropsychological impairment between the ambulatory and hospitalized groups. Factors linked to impairment were analyzed separately within each group.

Key results

• After laboratory confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, a total of 102 patients (76 ambulatory, 26 hospitalized) completed the symptom inventory and neurocognitive tests in 24 ± 22 days.
• Hospitalized and ambulatory patients self-reported high rates of cognitive impairment (27%-40%). There were no variations between the groups.
• However, hospitalized patients had more significant rates of objective impairment in visual memory (30% vs. 4%; P = .001) and psychomotor speed (41% vs. 15%; P = .008).
• Objective cognitive test performance was linked to anxiety, depression, fatigue, and pain in the ambulatory but not the hospitalized group.

Limitations

• The sample size of hospitalized patients was small.
• A larger fraction of hospitalized patients in the sample completed outcome assessments, compared with ambulatory patients, indicating that remote computerized testing did not present a disproportionate access barrier for patients with more severe illness.
• Owing to limited instances of delirium, seizures, and stroke, it was not possible to directly consider the contributions of these events to post–COVID-19 subjective complaints and objective impairment.
• The researchers depended on a 45-minute computerized test battery, which eliminates exposure risk and is available to patients in remote locations, but it necessitates computer literacy and access to a home desktop computer. While this requirement may have skewed the sample toward a more socioeconomically advantaged and younger population, there were no differences in age, race, or ethnicity between those who completed the computerized outcome assessments and those who did not. For patients who are able to give consent electronically, computerized testing does not pose an additional barrier.
• As a result of this study’s cross-sectional nature, the researchers could not comment on the natural history and long-term risk of COVID-19 cognitive impairment. It will be crucial to monitor cognitive progression at future time points to assess the rate and predictors of cognitive normalization versus decline.

Study disclosures

• Gregory S. Day, a coauthor, owns stock (greater than $10,000) in ANI Pharmaceuticals, a generic pharmaceutical company. He serves as a topic editor for DynaMed (EBSCO), overseeing development of evidence-based educational content, a consultant for Parabon Nanolabs (advice relevant to National Institutes of Health small business grant submission), and as the clinical director of the Anti-NMDA Receptor Encephalitis Foundation, Canada (uncompensated). The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Neurocognitive Screening in Patients Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Tools for Triage,” written by Karen Blackmon from Mayo Clinic in Florida, on medRxiv. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The study covered in this summary was published in Research Square as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Focal cognitive deficits are more prevalent in hospitalized patients than ambulatory patients.
• Cognitive performance is related to neuropsychiatric symptoms in ambulatory but not hospitalized patients.
• Objective neurocognitive measures can supply crucial information to guide clinical decisions regarding the need for further imaging or neurologic workup and should be included as endpoints in clinical trials.

Why this matters

• Cognitive complaints commonly occur in patients convalescing from COVID-19, although their cause is frequently unclear.
• The researchers evaluated factors that play a role in cognitive impairment in ambulatory versus hospitalized patients during the subacute stage of recovery.
• These results underscore the significance of assessing both subjective and objective complaints in ascertaining the prevalence of cognitive impairment in recovering patients and research participants.
• The drivers of cognitive complaints are likely different in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in comparison with ambulatory COVID-19 patients, so it’s important to understand these factors in making treatment decisions.
• Biopsychosocial factors appear to be a powerful driver of cognitive complaints in recovering ambulatory patients. They can be treated with interventions targeting anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, and pain, which may prove to be the most efficient and cost-effective approach to prevent disability in individuals with mild manifestations of COVID-19.
• Objective neurocognitive deficits were more prevalent in hospitalized patients – a marker of greater disease severity – with mainly deficits in memory and psychomotor speed. Factors that contribute to focal cognitive deficits in these individuals are emerging and represent a noteworthy realm for future investigation.

Study design

• The trial prospectively recruited patients from a hospital-wide registry at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
• All patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection on a real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain-reaction assay between June 2020 and March 2021.
• Patients were 18 years of age or older.
• The researchers excluded those with a pre-existing major neurocognitive disorder.
• To participate, patients needed access to a desktop or laptop computer to complete a test and survey.
• They responded to a comprehensive neuropsychological questionnaire and a computerized cognitive screen using a remote telemedicine platform.
• The researchers compared rates of subjective and objective neuropsychological impairment between the ambulatory and hospitalized groups. Factors linked to impairment were analyzed separately within each group.

Key results

• After laboratory confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, a total of 102 patients (76 ambulatory, 26 hospitalized) completed the symptom inventory and neurocognitive tests in 24 ± 22 days.
• Hospitalized and ambulatory patients self-reported high rates of cognitive impairment (27%-40%). There were no variations between the groups.
• However, hospitalized patients had more significant rates of objective impairment in visual memory (30% vs. 4%; P = .001) and psychomotor speed (41% vs. 15%; P = .008).
• Objective cognitive test performance was linked to anxiety, depression, fatigue, and pain in the ambulatory but not the hospitalized group.

Limitations

• The sample size of hospitalized patients was small.
• A larger fraction of hospitalized patients in the sample completed outcome assessments, compared with ambulatory patients, indicating that remote computerized testing did not present a disproportionate access barrier for patients with more severe illness.
• Owing to limited instances of delirium, seizures, and stroke, it was not possible to directly consider the contributions of these events to post–COVID-19 subjective complaints and objective impairment.
• The researchers depended on a 45-minute computerized test battery, which eliminates exposure risk and is available to patients in remote locations, but it necessitates computer literacy and access to a home desktop computer. While this requirement may have skewed the sample toward a more socioeconomically advantaged and younger population, there were no differences in age, race, or ethnicity between those who completed the computerized outcome assessments and those who did not. For patients who are able to give consent electronically, computerized testing does not pose an additional barrier.
• As a result of this study’s cross-sectional nature, the researchers could not comment on the natural history and long-term risk of COVID-19 cognitive impairment. It will be crucial to monitor cognitive progression at future time points to assess the rate and predictors of cognitive normalization versus decline.

Study disclosures

• Gregory S. Day, a coauthor, owns stock (greater than $10,000) in ANI Pharmaceuticals, a generic pharmaceutical company. He serves as a topic editor for DynaMed (EBSCO), overseeing development of evidence-based educational content, a consultant for Parabon Nanolabs (advice relevant to National Institutes of Health small business grant submission), and as the clinical director of the Anti-NMDA Receptor Encephalitis Foundation, Canada (uncompensated). The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Neurocognitive Screening in Patients Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Tools for Triage,” written by Karen Blackmon from Mayo Clinic in Florida, on medRxiv. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The study covered in this summary was published in Research Square as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Focal cognitive deficits are more prevalent in hospitalized patients than ambulatory patients.
• Cognitive performance is related to neuropsychiatric symptoms in ambulatory but not hospitalized patients.
• Objective neurocognitive measures can supply crucial information to guide clinical decisions regarding the need for further imaging or neurologic workup and should be included as endpoints in clinical trials.

Why this matters

• Cognitive complaints commonly occur in patients convalescing from COVID-19, although their cause is frequently unclear.
• The researchers evaluated factors that play a role in cognitive impairment in ambulatory versus hospitalized patients during the subacute stage of recovery.
• These results underscore the significance of assessing both subjective and objective complaints in ascertaining the prevalence of cognitive impairment in recovering patients and research participants.
• The drivers of cognitive complaints are likely different in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in comparison with ambulatory COVID-19 patients, so it’s important to understand these factors in making treatment decisions.
• Biopsychosocial factors appear to be a powerful driver of cognitive complaints in recovering ambulatory patients. They can be treated with interventions targeting anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, and pain, which may prove to be the most efficient and cost-effective approach to prevent disability in individuals with mild manifestations of COVID-19.
• Objective neurocognitive deficits were more prevalent in hospitalized patients – a marker of greater disease severity – with mainly deficits in memory and psychomotor speed. Factors that contribute to focal cognitive deficits in these individuals are emerging and represent a noteworthy realm for future investigation.

Study design

• The trial prospectively recruited patients from a hospital-wide registry at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
• All patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection on a real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain-reaction assay between June 2020 and March 2021.
• Patients were 18 years of age or older.
• The researchers excluded those with a pre-existing major neurocognitive disorder.
• To participate, patients needed access to a desktop or laptop computer to complete a test and survey.
• They responded to a comprehensive neuropsychological questionnaire and a computerized cognitive screen using a remote telemedicine platform.
• The researchers compared rates of subjective and objective neuropsychological impairment between the ambulatory and hospitalized groups. Factors linked to impairment were analyzed separately within each group.

Key results

• After laboratory confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, a total of 102 patients (76 ambulatory, 26 hospitalized) completed the symptom inventory and neurocognitive tests in 24 ± 22 days.
• Hospitalized and ambulatory patients self-reported high rates of cognitive impairment (27%-40%). There were no variations between the groups.
• However, hospitalized patients had more significant rates of objective impairment in visual memory (30% vs. 4%; P = .001) and psychomotor speed (41% vs. 15%; P = .008).
• Objective cognitive test performance was linked to anxiety, depression, fatigue, and pain in the ambulatory but not the hospitalized group.

Limitations

• The sample size of hospitalized patients was small.
• A larger fraction of hospitalized patients in the sample completed outcome assessments, compared with ambulatory patients, indicating that remote computerized testing did not present a disproportionate access barrier for patients with more severe illness.
• Owing to limited instances of delirium, seizures, and stroke, it was not possible to directly consider the contributions of these events to post–COVID-19 subjective complaints and objective impairment.
• The researchers depended on a 45-minute computerized test battery, which eliminates exposure risk and is available to patients in remote locations, but it necessitates computer literacy and access to a home desktop computer. While this requirement may have skewed the sample toward a more socioeconomically advantaged and younger population, there were no differences in age, race, or ethnicity between those who completed the computerized outcome assessments and those who did not. For patients who are able to give consent electronically, computerized testing does not pose an additional barrier.
• As a result of this study’s cross-sectional nature, the researchers could not comment on the natural history and long-term risk of COVID-19 cognitive impairment. It will be crucial to monitor cognitive progression at future time points to assess the rate and predictors of cognitive normalization versus decline.

Study disclosures

• Gregory S. Day, a coauthor, owns stock (greater than $10,000) in ANI Pharmaceuticals, a generic pharmaceutical company. He serves as a topic editor for DynaMed (EBSCO), overseeing development of evidence-based educational content, a consultant for Parabon Nanolabs (advice relevant to National Institutes of Health small business grant submission), and as the clinical director of the Anti-NMDA Receptor Encephalitis Foundation, Canada (uncompensated). The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Neurocognitive Screening in Patients Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Tools for Triage,” written by Karen Blackmon from Mayo Clinic in Florida, on medRxiv. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.