Status of medical genomics and genetics education in maternal-fetal medicine: survey of program directors and clinical fellows in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to assess the current state of medical genetics and genomics (MGG) education amongst maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) program directors (PDs) and clinical fellows. METHODS: An online questionnaire was generated and distributed to all current program directors and fellows in ACGME-accredited MFM fellowships across the USA in 2018. RESULTS: A total of 13 program directors and 54 MFM fellows responded to our survey. Of the respondents, 73% of the MFM fellows mentioned having dedicated structured MGG rotations as part of their training. Only 12% of fellows reported a high level of satisfaction with their programs' structured MGG rotations and almost 40% reported dissatisfaction, compared to 56% of PDs who reported very high satisfaction. Furthermore, 84% of PDs reported high levels of satisfaction with MGG didactics currently in place compared to only 24% of fellows sharing the same opinion. When compared to PDs, fellows reported a significantly lower satisfaction score toward their MGG rotations (p < .05) and didactic sessions (p < .05). More than 62% of PDs were satisfied with the number of MGG-faculty in their division compared to 80% of fellows who thought more faculty is needed. Thirty-eight percent of PDs quoted curricular overload and lack of time as the most important obstacles to MGG education, compared to 43% of fellows citing a limited number of genetics services providers as the most important obstacles to their MGG education. CONCLUSION: MFM fellows and PDs differ in their satisfaction with the current state of MGG didactics and rotations in their programs, the number of MGG faculty in their divisions, and the perceived obstacles to MGG education . Our study illustrates the need for MGG curriculum development in MFM fellowships as this subspecialty relies heavily on the use of genetics and genomics services.

The Impact of the New Hypertension Guidelines to Low-Dose Aspirin Prophylaxis Eligibility for the Prevention of Preeclampsia: A Cost-Benefit Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) published new guidelines which lower the cut-off for hypertension. We sought to evaluate the impact of these guidelines to cost and benefit of various low-dose aspirin prophylaxis approaches. STUDY DESIGN: Decision tree analysis was created using R software to evaluate four approaches to aspirin prophylaxis in the United States: no aspirin, United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) with Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC7) hypertension guidelines, USPSTF with ACC/AHA hypertension guidelines, as well as universal aspirin prophylaxis. This model was executed to simulate a hypothetical cohort of 4 million pregnant women in the United States. RESULTS: The new guidelines would expand the aspirin eligibility by 8% (76,953 women) in the USPSTF guidelines. Even with this increased eligibility, the USPSTF guidelines continue to be the approach with the most cost savings ($386.5 million) when compared with universal aspirin and no aspirin prophylaxis. The new hypertension guidelines are projected to increase the cost savings of the USPSTF approach by $9.4 million. CONCLUSION: Despite the small change in aspirin prophylaxis, using ACC/AHA definition of hypertension still results in an annual cost-saving of $9.4 million in the United States when compared with JNC7.

Forecasting the impact of coronavirus disease during delivery hospitalization: an aid for resource utilization.

Background: The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has severely affected the United States. During infectious disease outbreaks, forecasting models are often developed to inform resource utilization. Pregnancy and delivery pose unique challenges, given the altered maternal immune system and the fact that most American women choose to deliver in the hospital setting. Objective: This study aimed to forecast the first pandemic wave of coronavirus disease 2019 in the general population and the incidence of severe, critical, and fatal coronavirus disease 2019 cases during delivery hospitalization in the United States. Study Design: We used a phenomenological model to forecast the incidence of the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 in the United States. Incidence data from March 1, 2020, to April 14, 2020, were used to calibrate the generalized logistic growth model. Subsequently, Monte Carlo simulation was performed for each week from March 1, 2020, to estimate the incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 for delivery hospitalizations during the first pandemic wave using the available data estimate. Results: From March 1, 2020, our model forecasted a total of 860,475 cases of coronavirus disease 2019 in the general population across the United States for the first pandemic wave. The cumulative incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 during delivery hospitalization is anticipated to be 16,601 (95% confidence interval, 9711-23,491) cases, 3308 (95% confidence interval, 1755-4861) cases of which are expected to be severe, 681 (95% confidence interval, 1324-1038) critical, and 52 (95% confidence interval, 23-81) fatal. Assuming similar baseline maternal mortality rate as the year 2018, we projected an increase in maternal mortality rate in the United States to at least 18.7 (95% confidence interval, 18.0-19.5) deaths per 100,000 live births as a direct result of coronavirus disease 2019. Conclusion: Coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnant women is expected to severely affect obstetrical care. From March 1, 2020, we forecast 3308 severe and 681 critical cases with about 52 coronavirus disease 2019-related maternal mortalities during delivery hospitalization for the first pandemic wave in the United States. These results are significant for informing counseling and resource allocation.