<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_393"
                     title="SMFM: Gene Variants Linked to Preterm Labor (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.012"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/SMFM/tb/18295?impressionId=1265752357692"
                     
      Genetic variants involved in regulating inflammation and the extracellular matrix may increase the risk of preterm birth, researchers say.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;A single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in fetal interleukin-6 (&lt;em&gt;ILR6&lt;/em&gt;) and another in maternal tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 2 (&lt;em&gt;TIMP2&lt;/em&gt;) were each associated with a twofold increased risk of spontaneous preterm birth.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Roberto Romero, MD, of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and colleagues reported the findings at the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine meeting in Chicago.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The genetic makeup of both mother and fetus can contribute to the risk of premature labor,&quot; Romero told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;. &quot;Our discovery . . . helps explain why some mothers have premature labor and delivery despite having optimal prenatal care.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Inflammatory hormones have been shown to play a role in the labor process, and previous studies have found that a third of preterm infants are born to mothers with a silent amniotic infection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Now, the findings suggest that individual genetic variation involved in that inflammatory response may account for discrepancies in preterm births.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;We have a large body of evidence that proves silent infections are a frequent and important cause of premature labor,&quot; Romero said. &quot;These infections can also attack the fetus before it is born.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He explained that the mother&apos;s hormones initiate the onset of labor to get rid of the infected tissue, and the fetus seeks to exit a hostile intrauterine environment that threatens its survival.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To look at the mechanisms by which this process occurs, Romero and colleagues conducted a case-control study of mothers in Chile to assess genetic factors that could predispose women to spontaneous preterm labor and delivery.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patients who delivered prior to 37 weeks gestation served as cases, while women who delivered a normal neonate at term served as controls. There were 223 mothers and 179 fetuses in the case group, and 599 mothers and 628 fetuses in the control group.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers subsequently examined 190 candidate genes and 775 SNPs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They found that the strongest fetal single-locus association with risk of spontaneous preterm birth was in &lt;em&gt;ILR6&lt;/em&gt;, (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.02,&lt;em&gt; P&lt;/em&gt;=0.0001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The strongest maternal single-locus association with spontaneous preterm labor and delivery was in tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase &lt;em&gt;TIMP2&lt;/em&gt; (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.83, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.0002). This gene is involved in regulating the extracellular matrix, which holds cells within tissues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The associations remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons, Romero said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Global haplotype analysis also indicated an association between a fetal DNA variant in insulin-like growth factor 2 (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.004) as well as maternal alpha 3 type IV collagen isoform 1 (&lt;em&gt;COL4A3&lt;/em&gt;) (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.007).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Some women and fetuses carry gene variants that predispose them to the early onset of labor,&quot; Romero said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_299"
                     title="Teen Pregnancies, Births, and Abortions Increase"
                     score="0.005"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/tb/18162?impressionId=1265752357692"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;After a decade of decline, the rate of teenage pregnancies increased by 3% in 2006 as 750,000 women younger than 20 became pregnant, according to a report released by the Guttmacher Institute.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;And as pregnancies increased, so did births  --  41.9 births per 1,000 U.S. teenage girls, which was 4% higher than in 2005  --  and abortions, which increased by 1% from 2005 to 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a prepared statement, Planned Parenthood blamed abstinence-only sex education programs for the uptick.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It is a tragedy that after a decade of progress in reducing the rate of teenage pregnancy we are witnessing a substantial increase in the number of teens who are getting pregnant,&quot; Planned Parenthood said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a statement released last May in conjunction with the &quot;National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy&quot; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), agreed that comprehensive sex education was likely to be more effective than abstinence-only programs.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Abstinence works for some teens, but the idea that most teens will wait to have sex indefinitely is rigid and impractical,&quot; said Richard S. Guido, MD, chair of the ACOG&apos;s Committee on Adolescent Health Care.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But the Guttmacher report suggested that the reasons for increase may be more complex, including &quot;shifts in the racial and ethnic composition of the population, increases in poverty, the growth of abstinence-only sex education programs at the expense of comprehensive programs, and changes in public perception and attitudes toward both teenage and unintended pregnancy.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among black teenagers the pregnancy rate was 126.3 per 1,000 versus 44 per 1,000 non-Hispanic white teenagers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A breakdown by state revealed that New Mexico had the highest teenage pregnancy rate, followed by Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and Mississippi.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Conversely, the lowest teenage pregnancy rate was in New Hampshire  --  33 pregnancies per 1,000  --  followed by Vermont, Maine, Minnesota, and North Dakota.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Texas had the highest rate of births to teenage mothers  --  62 per 1,000  --  and New York had the highest rate of abortions among teenagers, 41 per 1,000.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The report was based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (number of births), the Guttmacher Institute (total number of abortions), the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (age and race/ethnicity distribution of women obtaining abortions), and the Population Estimates Program of the U.S. Bureau of the Census in collaboration with NCHS (population estimates).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among other findings in the report: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;The pregnancy rate was 71.5 pregnancies per 1,000 girls ages 15-19 and pregnancies occurred among 7% of females in this age group.&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Although teenage abortions increased by 1% from 2005 to 2006, the overall teenage abortion rate declined by about a third over the two decades from 1986 to 2006.&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;The increase in teen pregnancies and births to teenage mothers was observed across all racial and ethnic groups.&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors said that additional research was needed to determine if the disparities in rates by both race and region carry over to adult women.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The report was prepared by Kathryn Kost, Stanley Henshaw, and Liz Carlin of the Guttmacher Institute.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Lawrence Finer, Rebecca Wind, Susheela Singh, and Laura Lindberg provided comments on early drafts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The report was funded by grants from the Brush Foundation, The California Wellness Foundation (TCWF) and the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Guttmacher Institute also gratefully acknowledges the general support it receives from individuals and foundations, including major grants from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and the Ford Foundation, which undergirds all of the Institute&apos;s work.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_288"
                     title="SSRIs Affect Breast Milk Production (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.005"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/GeneralEndocrinology/tb/18149?impressionId=1265752357692"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Women taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants may experience delays in postpartum breast milk production, researchers said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Delayed secretory activation occurred in 87.5% of a small group of women taking SSRIs, compared with 43.5% of those not taking the drugs (RR 2, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.67, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.02), according to Aaron M. Marshall, PhD, of the University of Cincinnati.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The relative risk of delayed activation remained significantly higher (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.05) among SSRI users after adjustment for maternal age, obesity, cesarean delivery, infant gestational age, and infant breastfeeding behavior, the researchers reported online in the &lt;em&gt;Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An early breastfeeding difficulty faced by many women, particularly those who are primiparous, is milk secretion delayed beyond 72 hours postpartum.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These women also are at risk of early cessation of breastfeeding. In fact, only 11% of mothers in the U.S. breastfeed exclusively for the recommended six months.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Studies in animal models and cell cultures suggested that serotonin (5-HT) is an important local regulator of lactation homeostasis, and the 5-HT transporter is expressed in mammary tissue at the apical membrane of epithelial cells.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Serotonin is controlled intracellularly by a balance between synthesis and degradation, while extracellularly its availability is controlled through recycling by the 5-HT transporter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The 5-HT transporter also is the target for the most commonly prescribed class of antidepressants in the U.S. and other developed countries. These SSRI antidepressants are typically used to treat postpartum depression.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The investigators conducted in vitro and animal studies to establish that the 5-HT transporter is expressed in breast tissue, particularly in the apical membranes of mammary epithelial cells, and that pharmacologic inhibition of the transporter disrupts tight junctures leading to a local involution-like effect.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To examine the potential effect of SSRI inhibition on milk production in women, Marshall and colleagues enrolled 431 mothers as part of a longitudinal cohort study examining barriers to early lactation success.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All were expecting their first live-born infants, had no known absolute contraindication to breastfeeding, and were at least 19 years old.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Women taking SSRIs were more likely to have scored higher on a depressive symptom scale (as expected), and were somewhat more likely to be obese or to have had a cesarean delivery.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Participating mothers were visited between 72 and 96 hours after giving birth to assess their breastfeeding experience and to determine the timing of secretory activation, and then seen again one week later.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Delayed secretory activation was defined as initiation more than 72 hours postpartum.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Median onset of secretory activation among the SSRI-treated mothers was 85.8 hours compared with 69.1 hours in mothers not using the drugs (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.004).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Eight women reported regular use of an SSRI medication. Seven experienced definite delayed secretory activation, and the eighth reported activation at 72 hours and therefore did not meet the defined cutoff for delayed activation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All women taking SSRIs had experienced secretory activation by their second visit a week after the first interview.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers noted that most studies on the effects of SSRI use during pregnancy and lactation have focused on the risks for developmental defects or whether the drugs passed into milk during lactation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This study, they said, is the first to report data on another important aspect of SSRI use during the peripartum, the effect on milk production.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They concluded that the risk of delayed secretory activation was twice as great among primiparous women using an SSRI medication, and although the fraction of women taking the drugs was small, the risk was significant and remained so after adjustment for potential confounding factors.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further examination of this relationship is needed in larger groups of mothers, the researchers said, and in studies to determine if there are differences among the antidepressant medications.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, and the Department of Health and Human Services.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_237"
                     title="Novel &apos;Morning-After&apos; Pill Works for Five Days (CME/CE)"
                     score="-0"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/tb/18091?impressionId=1265752357692"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;A novel emergency contraceptive is effective and well tolerated up to 120 hours after unprotected sexual intercourse, researchers said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The finding makes ulipristal acetate the first emergency contraceptive to be effective for such a long period of time, according to Paul Fine, MD, of Planned Parenthood of Houston &amp;amp; Southeast Texas, and colleagues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The only FDA-approved similar medication is levonorgestrel (Plan B), which is indicated for use for only 72 hours after unprotected sex, the researchers noted in the February issue of &lt;em&gt;Obstetrics &amp;amp; Gynecology&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both drugs are manufactured by HRA Pharma of Paris, which supported the study. Ulipristal has been given marketing authorization in Europe (under the brand name ellaOne) but is not yet approved in the U.S.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Currently, the options for women needing emergency contraception more than 72 hours after intercourse are limited to copper intrauterine devices, which have been shown to be highly effective, the researchers noted in the journal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But such devices are not universally available, can be inserted only by a trained clinician, and have a risk of complications including perforation of the uterus.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ulipristal, a selective progesterone receptor modulator that blocks or delays ovulation, has been shown to be as efficacious as levonorgestrel when used in the first 72 hours after unprotected intercourse, Fine and colleagues said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To see how well it would do outside that time window, the researchers studied 1,241 women 18 or older with regular cycles who sought emergency contraception between 48 and 120 hours after unprotected intercourse.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They were treated with a single 30-milligram dose of ulipristal and their subsequent pregnancy status was discovered by urinary human chorionic gonadotropin testing, as well as return of menses, Fine and colleagues said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To be a success, the researchers said, the trial had to yield a pregnancy rate less than the expected 5.5% and an upper bound of the 95% confidence interval less than a so-called &quot;threshold of irrelevance&quot; of 4%.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overall, they reported, 26 of the women were found to be pregnant  --  a rate of 2.1%, with a 95% confidence interval from 1.4% to 3.1%, which met both objectives.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Unlike levonorgestrel, they said, the efficacy did not decrease significantly over time, they said. Specifically, pregnancy rates were: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;2.3% (with a 95% confidence interval from 1.4% to 3.8%) when the treatment was given between 48 and 72 hours after unprotected sex&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;2.1% (with a 95% confidence interval from 1.0% to 4.1%) when the delay was between 72 and 96 hours&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;1.3% (with a 95% confidence interval from 0.1% to 4.8%) between 96 and 120 hours&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Fine and colleagues said the most frequent adverse events were headache, nausea, and abdominal pain, but they were mostly mild or moderate and resolved spontaneously.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by HRA Pharma of Paris.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fine did not report any conflicts. Two other authors are employees of the company.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_212"
                     title="No Need for Most Moms to Fast During Labor (CME/CE)"
                     score="-0.001"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/tb/18059?impressionId=1265752357692"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Although conventional wisdom has long held that women shouldn&apos;t eat or drink during labor, the scientific evidence suggests there&apos;s no reason for the prohibition, according to a new meta-analysis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Since the evidence shows no benefits or harms, there is no justification for the restriction of fluids and food in labor for women at low risk of complications,&quot; Mandisa Singata, MBA, RM, RN, of the University of the Witwatersrand in East London, South Africa, and colleagues concluded in a Cochrane review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They identified five studies involving 3,130 women that examined whether food and drink during labor affected outcomes such as rates of cesarean section, operative vaginal births, or Apgar scores. No significant advantage was found for restricting access to food or liquids on any outcome, Singata and colleagues found.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Until the 1940s, women were generally encouraged to eat and drink during labor  --  often specific foods and fluids  --  to keep up their strength.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But a 1946 paper and other publications by Curtis Lewis Mendelson suggested that access to food increased the risk that women under anesthesia would aspirate acidic stomach contents during labor, potentially causing serious lung injury and even death.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mendelson&apos;s work persuaded many obstetricians to urge that women fast until after delivery, according to Singata and colleagues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers cited a 1988 survey of U.S. hospitals that found almost half allowed only ice chips, although more recent trends suggested that access to food and liquids had increased, at least in Great Britain.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They noted that some women in labor don&apos;t feel like eating but others regard restrictions as &quot;unpleasant and sometimes harrowing.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One reason for revisiting Mendelson&apos;s research is that anesthesia procedures have changed markedly since the 1940s, with regurgitation of stomach contents now considered very rare.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The policy of routine restriction of foods and fluids in labor in many hospitals across the world generally does not reflect women&apos;s preferences or cultural expectations,&quot; Singata and colleagues wrote. &quot;It is critical that any policy should be based on evidence of overall benefit to women and babies.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Searching the literature, Singata and colleagues found five randomized trials that had compared more versus less restrictive nutrition regimens.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Only one of the trials tested free access to any kind of food and drink against restriction to ice chips or sips of water. The other four examined particular classes of nutritive foods or drinks.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Two tested electrolyte-carbohydrate sports drinks and two others evaluated low-fat and/or low-residue foods, all against water or ice chips.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Pooling data from the five studies, Singata and colleagues calculated relative risks for three major adverse outcomes for allowing access to nutrition, versus water or ice chips: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Cesarean section: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.25&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Operative vaginal birth: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.10&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Apgar scores &amp;lt;7 at five minutes: RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.68&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The meta-analysis also examined eight other outcomes, such as maternal ketosis and nausea and vomiting, infant admission to intensive care, and augmentation of labor. There were no significant differences in any of these outcomes between allowing and restricting access to nutrition.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The sole study comparing unlimited access to food and drink to water or ice chips, which had 330 participants, also found no effects on either primary or secondary outcomes in either direction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;None of the studies examined women&apos;s perceptions of the labor experience based on whether or not they had access to nutrition.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Singata and colleagues called the overall quality of evidence &quot;reasonable.&quot; But they noted that none of the studies enrolled women at increased risk of needing general anesthesia, so the conclusions should be interpreted as applying only to women at low risk of complications.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The studies also left some questions unanswered. For example, one of the two sports drink studies found that C-section rates were lower in participants who drank plain water, but no such result was seen in the other.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It would be worth comparing the use of carbohydrate drinks ... with freedom to eat and drink at will during labour to see if this really is a problem,&quot; Singata and colleagues wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Moreover, they suggested, &quot;a better approach&quot; to the rare problem of inhaling regurgitated material while under anesthesia during labor may be to test treatments intended to reduce acidity and volume of stomach contents, now used during elective C-sections.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;External funding for the study came from the World Health Organization and the U.K. National Institute for Health Research.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;One author of the review was principal author of one of the studies included in the meta-analysis, but did not participate in decisions regarding data from that study. No other potential conflicts were reported.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
</recommendedContent>