Does a video module improve patient adherence to recommended gestational weight gain guidelines?

OBJECTIVES: We aim to assess if implementation of an educational video module can improve patient adherence to recommended weight gain guidelines. Secondarily, we investigated if patients' knowledge about gestational weight gain was improved with use of the video, as well as if there was a difference in maternal and neonatal outcomes, and patient satisfaction. METHODS: This was an IRB-approved, prospective cohort study conducted from February 2019 to October 2019. Patients were recruited from a large academic practice during their first trimester of pregnancy. Patients in the control cohort received routine care. Patients in the video cohort watched a 5-min educational video module about gestational weight gain. Pre-pregnancy weight and baseline demographics were recorded. All patients took a baseline questionnaire assessing gestational weight gain knowledge upon enrollment, and again 4 weeks later. Pre and post score differences were calculated. On admission to the hospital for delivery, all patients' gestational weight gain was calculated, and the overall gestational weight gain differences between the two groups were calculated. Maternal and neonatal delivery outcomes were also collected. T-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Chi-square analyses were used to compare groups, and a p-value of <.05 was deemed statistically significant. RESULTS: During the study period, 155 patients were recruited, with 79 in control cohort and 76 in video cohort, respectively. There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients who gained the appropriate amount of weight between the two groups; 25% (18/74) of patients in the control vs. 25% (17/68) of patients in video cohort (p = .926). There was no difference in the improvement of the pre and post assessment scores when compared between the two cohorts; the average score improvement was 1.72 ± 15.09% for the control, vs. 6.20 ± 12.51% for video cohort (p = .129). There was no difference in maternal or neonatal outcomes between the two groups. Patients were overall satisfied with the video module, with 67.6% (n = 45) reporting the video to be very educational. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a video module did not improve GWG outcomes or knowledge in our study. Future work can focus on use of a recurring intervention throughout pregnancy, either with app-based technology or multiple videos.

Psychological measures of patient's decision-making for prenatal genetic testing.

OBJECTIVE: To use a questionnaire to determine the levels of maternal decision-related distress, clarity of the pros and cons, and certainty when considering prenatal genetic diagnostic testing; and to assess the relationship between these constructs and patient characteristics. METHOD: Cross-sectional study. Voluntary, anonymous questionnaires distributed 2017-2019 to women referred for invasive prenatal genetic testing. Excluded: English or Spanish illiterate. Maternal characteristics were collected. Questions evaluated distress, decisional certainty, and decisional clarity on a 5-point Likert scale (range: 0 = low/uncertain/unclear to 4 = high/certain/clear). Analysis: non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis, correlation statistics, and ANOVA. RESULTS: Forty-four female patients completed it. Most were married, white, Catholic, and multiparous. 58% had already made a testing decision. Patients expressed low distress levels (mean 1.18 ± 0.80) and expressed high decisional certainty (mean 3.28 ± 0.76) and clarity (mean 3.30 ± 0.99). Decisional certainty and clarity were positively correlated (r = 0.47, p < .01), whereas distress was negatively correlated with decisional certainty (r = -0.8136, p < .0005) and decisional clarity (r = -0.49, p = .007). No significant differences by religion or parity. Greater distress (p < .05) and less decisional clarity (p = .07) occurred between those still debating testing vs those who had decided. CONCLUSIONS: Higher maternal distress scores were associated with lower decisional certainty and decisional clarity in women considering prenatal genetic testing.

Histological Changes Observed in Placentas Exposed to Medication-Assisted Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: To compare the effects of medication-assisted treatment on the placenta in pregnant women with opioid use disorder and uncomplicated pregnancies. METHODS: This is a case-controlled study of pregnant women utilizing medication-assisted treatment, buprenorphine or methadone, which were matched to healthy uncomplicated controls by gestational age. Placental evaluations and neonatal outcomes were evaluated. Data analysis performed standard statistics and relative risk analysis with a p < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: There were 143 women who met the inclusion criteria: 103 utilizing MAT, 41 buprenorphine and 62 methadone, and 40 uncomplicated matched healthy controls. The incidence of delayed villous maturation was 36% in the medication-assisted group compared with 10% in controls (RR 3.6: 95% CI 1.37-9.43; p < 0.01). The placental weight was greater (541 ± 117 g versus 491 ± 117 g; p = 0.02), and the fetoplacental weight ratio was lower (5.70 ± 1.1 versus 7.13 ± 1.4; p < 0.01) in the medication-exposed pregnancies compared with controls. The mean birth weight of the MAT newborns was significantly lower than that of the healthy controls (3018 ± 536 g versus 3380 ± 492 g; p < 0.01). When evaluating the subgroups of the MAT newborns, the birth weight of the methadone-exposed newborns (2886 ± 514 g) was significantly lower than that of the buprenorphine-exposed newborns (3218 ± 512 g; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Medication-exposed pregnancies have a greater incidence of delayed villous maturation, a larger placental size, and a decreased fetoplacental weight ratio compared to the healthy controls. Larger long-term follow-up studies to evaluate outcomes with the presence of delayed villous maturation are needed.

Risk of metformin failure in the treatment of women with gestational diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the metformin failure rate in women with gestational diabetes. METHODS: The study was designed as a retrospective cohort of women diagnosed with gestational diabetes by the 75 g 2 h oral glucose tolerance test. Women were placed into two groups: metformin success (107 patients not requiring insulin therapy) or metformin failure (15 patients requiring the addition of, or, transition to insulin). Primary outcome: rate of metformin failure. Secondary outcomes: maternal and neonatal factors. RESULTS: The failure rate of metformin was 15% (19/122 women) in the study. The failure group was more likely to have 3 abnormal values on a 2-h 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (37% (n=7/19) vs. 15% (n=15/103), p=0.02). Patients who failed had higher average fasting blood glucose levels on the glucose tolerance test as well as on pretreatment fasting finger stick values. Those who failed metformin were diagnosed with gestational diabetes and started on metformin earlier in gestation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall low rate of metformin failure in treatment of gestational diabetes.

Comparison of buprenorphine and methadone in the management of maternal opioid use disorder in full term pregnancies.

Objectives To compare pregnancy outcomes with medication assisted treatment using. methadone or buprenorphine in term mothers with opioid use disorder. Methods A cohort of women receiving medication assisted treatment with either methadone or buprenorphine were identified from delivery records over a 10-year period. Women were excluded with delivery <37 weeks, multiple gestations, or a known anomalous fetus. Maternal demographics, medications, mode of delivery, birthweight, newborn length of stay, and neonatal abstinence syndrome were extracted. The study was IRB approved and a p-value of <0.05 was significant. Results There were 260 women, 140 (53.8%) with methadone use and 120 (46.2%) with buprenorphine use. Groups were similar for maternal age, race, parity, homeless rate, tobacco use, mode of delivery and incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome. The methadone group had a lower mean newborn birthweight (2874±459 g) and a greater incidence of low birth weight (11.4%) than the buprenorphine group (3282±452 g; p<0.001 and 2.5%; p=0.006). The incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome was similar between groups (97% methadone vs. 92.5% buprenorphine; p=0.08). The methadone group had a longer newborn length of stay (11.4+7.4 days) and more newborn treatment with morphine (44.6%) than the buprenorphine group (8.2+4.4 days; p<0.001 and 24.2%; p<0.001). Maternal methadone use was an independent predictor for a newborn length of hospital stay >7 days (OR 3.61; 95% confidence interval 1.32-9.86; p=0.01). Conclusions Medication assisted treatment favors buprenorphine use when compared to. methadone with an increased birthweight, reduced need for newborn treatment, and a shorter newborn length of stay in term infants.

Randomized controlled trial of insulin detemir versus NPH for the treatment of pregnant women with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if insulin detemir (IDet) is noninferior to insulin neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) for the treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a randomized, controlled noninferiority trial of women with GDM and T2DM who entered our Diabetes in Pregnancy Program from March 2013 through October 2014. Exclusion criteria were type 1 diabetes, age <18 years, and insulin allergy. Women who failed to achieve good glycemic control (GC) (mean blood glucose [BG] <100 mg/dL) on diet and/or hypoglycemic agents were randomized to receive either IDet or NPH, with short-acting insulin aspart added as needed. Patients were instructed to test BG 4 times a day (fasting and 2-hour postprandial). Targets of GC were fasting BG <90 mg/dL and postprandial BG <120 mg/dL, and insulin was adjusted as needed to achieve the targets. The primary outcome was overall mean BG during insulin treatment; secondary outcomes included overall mean postprandial and fasting BG, median number of weeks to achieve GC, percent of patients with overall GC, maternal weight gain, perinatal/neonatal outcomes, and number of hypoglycemic events. Power analysis (90% power) determined that 88 patients would need to be randomized, assuming a maximal acceptable difference in overall mean BG of 7 mg/dL (SD ± 10 mg/dL). A per protocol analysis was performed. RESULTS: In all, 105 women were randomized. Eighteen women were excluded leaving 87 participants for analysis (45 NPH, 42 IDet). Maternal characteristics were similar in both groups. The difference in the mean BG of the groups was 2.1 mg/dL with a 1-sided upper 95% confidence limit of 5.5 mg/dL (less than the maximal acceptable difference of 7 mg/dL; P = .2937). There was no significant difference in the primary outcome when an intent-to-treat analysis was performed or when the T2DM patients were excluded. The time to achieve GC was similar in both groups. There were no differences in perinatal outcomes and maternal weight gain among the groups. There were more hypoglycemic events per patient in the NPH group. CONCLUSION: IDet is noninferior to insulin NPH for the treatment of GDM and T2DM in pregnancy.