Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Use in Pregnancy: A Review.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are peptide analogues that are used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and obesity. The first medication in this class, Exenatide, was approved in 2005, and these medications, specifically Semaglutide, have become more popular in recent years due to their pronounced effects on glycemic control, weight reduction, and cardiovascular health. Due to successful weight loss from these medications, many women previously diagnosed with oligomenorrhea and unable to conceive have experienced unplanned pregnancies while taking the medications. However, there is currently little data for clinicians to use in counseling patients in cases of accidental periconceptional exposure. In some studies examining small animals exposed to GLP-1RAs in pregnancy, there has been evidence of adverse outcomes in the offspring, including decreased fetal growth, skeletal and visceral anomalies, and embryonic death. Although there are no prospective studies in humans, case reports, cohort studies, and population-based studies have not shown a pattern of congenital anomalies in infants. A recent large, observational, population-based cohort study examined 938 pregnancies affected by T2DM and compared outcomes from periconceptional exposure to GLP-1RAs and insulin. The authors concluded there was not a significantly increased risk of major congenital malformations in patients taking GLP-1RAs, although there was no information on maternal glycemic control or diabetic fetopathy. As diabetic embryopathy is directly related to the degree of maternal hyperglycemia and not the diagnosis of diabetes itself, it is not possible to make this conclusion without this information. Furthermore, there is little evidence available regarding fetal growth restriction, embryonic or fetal death, or other potential complications. At this time, patients should be counseled there is not enough evidence to predict any adverse effects, or the lack thereof, of periconceptional exposure of GLP-1RAs during pregnancy. We recommend that all patients use contraception to prevent unintended pregnancy while taking GLP-1RAs.

Class III obesity is an independent risk factor for unsuccessful induction of labor.

BACKGROUND: Although obesity is a known risk factor for cesarean delivery, there is a paucity of data on the course of induction of labor in these patients. OBJECTIVE: With emerging data on the safety of 39-week inductions, we aimed to: (1) determine if Class III obesity, including morbid obesity, is an independent risk factor for nonachievement of complete dilation and vaginal delivery after induction of labor, (2) evaluate the characteristics of the induction of labor course and immediate complications, and (3) evaluate the number of induction agents necessary to be associated with vaginal deliveries. We hypothesized that as body mass index increased, it would take longer to achieve complete cervical dilation, more induction agents would be required, and there would be a higher rate of cesarean delivery. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of singleton gestations undergoing induction of labor from 2013 to 2020 at a single center. Study groups were defined as nonobese (body mass index <30 kg/m2), non-Class III obesity (body mass index of 30-39.9 kg/m2), and Class III obesity (body mass index ≥40 kg/m2). The primary outcome was achievement of complete cervical dilation. Secondary outcomes included time from start of induction to complete dilation, cesarean delivery rates, doses of misoprostol used, combination of induction agents used, and incidence of chorioamnionitis and postpartum hemorrhage. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to estimate risks. A secondary analysis was performed on nulliparous patients. RESULTS: A total of 3046 individuals met the inclusion criteria. As body mass index increased, the indications for induction were more likely to be maternal. Rate of achievement of complete dilation decreased with increasing body mass index (973 [88.5%] in the body mass index <30 group vs 455 [70.8%] in the body mass index ≥40 group; adjusted odds ratio, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.4). The rate of cesarean delivery also increased (149 [13.5%] in the body mass index <30 group vs 207 [30.9%] in the body mass index ≥40 group; adjusted odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.5-4.2), as did the time to complete dilation (15.3 hours in the body mass index <30 group vs 18.8 hours in the body mass index ≥40 group; P<.001). Morbidly obese patients required higher doses and more types of induction agents. Misoprostol was used as the sole induction agent in 362 (35.1%) of patients in the body mass index <30 group vs 160 (25.4%) of patients in the body mass index ≥40 group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.5-0.8). In the body mass index ≥40 group, a greater number required a combination of misoprostol, mechanical ripening, and oxytocin for induction (147 [14.3%] in the body mass index <30 group vs 158 [25.0%] in the body mass index ≥40 group; adjusted odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.3). For nulliparous patients, the rate of cesarean delivery was significantly higher with increasing body mass index (118 [18.3%] in the body mass index <30 group and 157 [48.2%] in the body mass index ≥40 group; P<.001), with 5 more hours spent in labor (18.3 hours in the body mass index <30 group vs 23.3 hours in the body mass index ≥40 group; P<.001). Nulliparous patients were also more likely to require multiple induction agents (122 [20.3%] for body mass index <30 vs 108 [33.6%] for body mass index ≥40; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Class III obesity is an independent risk factor for nonachievement of complete dilation and vaginal delivery following induction of labor. Furthermore, inductions in these patients require more time and are more likely to require multiple agents.

Arthroscopically Assisted Versus Standard Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Techniques for the Acute Ankle Fracture.

BACKGROUND: Ankle fractures represent one of the most common orthopaedic injuries requiring operative treatment. Although open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of ankle fractures leads to good results in most patients, poor functional outcomes continue to be reported in some patients for whom anatomic reduction was achieved. It has been theorized that these lesser outcomes may in part be due to a component of missed intra-articular injury that reportedly ranges between 20% and 79%, although to date the true explanation for this subset of lower functional outcomes remains unknown. Such concerns have recently spawned novel techniques of arthroscopically assisted ankle fracture assessment in hopes of enabling better detection and treatment of concomitant intra-articular ankle injuries. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize the literature comparing standard ORIF to arthroscopically assisted ORIF (AAORIF) for ankle fractures. METHODS: A systematic review of the English literature was performed using the PubMed database to access all studies over the last 50 years that have documented the functional outcomes of acute ankle fracture management using either a traditional ORIF or an AAORIF technique in the adult population. Relevant publications were analyzed for their respective Levels of Evidence as well as any perceived differences reported in operative time, outcomes, and complications. RESULTS: A total of only 14 ORIF and 4 AAORIF papers fit the criteria for review. There is fair quality (grade B) evidence to support good to excellent outcomes following traditional ORIF of malleolar fractures. There is fair-quality (grade B) evidence that ankle arthroscopy can be successfully employed for identification and treatment of intra-articular injuries associated with acute ankle fractures, but insufficient (grade I) evidence examining the functional outcomes and complication rates after treatment of these injuries and little documentation that this approach portends any improvement in patient outcome over historical techniques. There is also insufficient (grade I) evidence from 2 prospective randomized studies and 1 case-control study to provide any direct comparative data on functional outcomes, complication rates or total operative time between AAORIF and ORIF for the treatment of acute ankle fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Ankle arthroscopy is a valuable tool in identifying and treating intra-articular lesions associated with ankle fractures. The presence of such intra-articular pathology may lead to the unexpectedly poor outcomes seen in some patients who undergo surgical fixation of ankle fractures with otherwise anatomic reduction on postoperative radiographs; the ability to diagnose and address these lesions therefore has the potential to improve patient outcomes. To date, however, currently available literature has not shown that treatment of these intra-articular injuries provides any improvement in outcomes over standard ORIF, and few prospective randomized controlled studies have been performed comparing these 2 operative techniques-rendering any suggestion that AAORIF improves clinical outcomes over traditional ORIF difficult to justify. Further research is indicated for what may be a potentially promising surgical adjunct before we can advocate its routine use in these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review.