Toward the elimination of race-based medicine: replace race with racism as preeclampsia risk factor

Structural heteropatriarchy and maternal cardiovascular morbidities

The United States has some of the poorest maternal health outcomes of any developed nation. Existing research on maternal cardiovascular morbidities has focused predominantly on individual- and clinic-level drivers, but we know little about community- and structural-level factors that shape these outcomes. We use a composite measure of "structural heteropatriarchy" which includes measures of structural sexism and structural LGB-stigma to examine the relationship between structural heteropatriarchy and three cardiovascular-related maternal morbidities using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (n = 3928). Results using multivariate regressions show that structural heteropatriarchy is associated with increased risk of reporting maternal morbidities. Our findings provide further evidence that sexuality- and gender-based stigma operate together to shape health disparities, including maternal health.

Associations between anxiety, sleep, and blood pressure parameters in pregnancy: a prospective pilot cohort study

BACKGROUND

The potential effect modification of sleep on the relationship between anxiety and elevated blood pressure (BP) in pregnancy is understudied. We evaluated the relationship between anxiety, insomnia, and short sleep duration, as well as any interaction effects between these variables, on BP during pregnancy.

METHODS

This was a prospective pilot cohort of pregnant people between 23 to 36 weeks' gestation at a single institution between 2021 and 2022. Standardized questionnaires were used to measure clinical insomnia and anxiety. Objective sleep duration was measured using a wrist-worn actigraphy device. Primary outcomes were systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP), and mean (MAP) non-invasive BP measurements. Separate sequential multivariable linear regression models fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to separately assess associations between anxiety (independent variable) and each BP parameter (dependent variables), after adjusting for potential confounders (Model 1). Additional analyses were conducted adding insomnia and the interaction between anxiety and insomnia as independent variables (Model 2), and adding short sleep duration and the interaction between anxiety and short sleep duration as independent variables (Model 3), to evaluate any moderating effects on BP parameters.

RESULTS

Among the 60 participants who completed the study, 15 (25%) screened positive for anxiety, 11 (18%) had subjective insomnia, and 34 (59%) had objective short sleep duration. In Model 1, increased anxiety was not associated with increases in any BP parameters. When subjective insomnia was included in Model 2, increased DBP and MAP was significantly associated with anxiety (DBP: β 6.1, p = 0.01, MAP: β 6.2 p < 0.01). When short sleep was included in Model 3, all BP parameters were significantly associated with anxiety (SBP: β 9.6, p = 0.01, DBP: β 8.1, p < 0.001, and MAP: β 8.8, p < 0.001). No moderating effects were detected between insomnia and anxiety (p interactions: SBP 0.80, DBP 0.60, MAP 0.32) or between short sleep duration and anxiety (p interactions: SBP 0.12, DBP 0.24, MAP 0.13) on BP.

CONCLUSIONS

When including either subjective insomnia or objective short sleep duration, pregnant people with anxiety had 5.1-9.6 mmHg higher SBP, 6.1-8.1 mmHg higher DBP, and 6.2-8.8 mmHg higher MAP than people without anxiety.

Obstetric violence is a misnomer

The term "obstetric violence" has been used in the legislative language of several countries to protect mothers from abuse during pregnancy. Subsequently, it has been expanded to include a spectrum of obstetric procedures, such as induction of labor, episiotomy, and cesarean delivery, and has surfaced in the peer-reviewed literature. The term "obstetric violence" can be seen as quite strong and emotionally charged, which may lead to misunderstandings or misconceptions. It might be interpreted as implying a deliberate act of violence by healthcare providers when mistreatment can sometimes result from systemic issues, lack of training, or misunderstandings rather than intentional violence. "Obstetric mistreatment" is a more comprehensive term that can encompass a broader range of behaviors and actions. "Violence" generally refers to the intentional use of physical force to cause harm, injury, or damage to another person (eg, physical assault, domestic violence, street fights, or acts of terrorism), whereas "mistreatment" is a more general term and refers to the abuse, harm, or control exerted over another person (such as nonconsensual medical procedures, verbal abuse, disrespect, discrimination and stigmatization, or neglect, to name a few examples). There may be cases where unprofessional personnel may commit mistreatment and violence against pregnant patients, but as obstetrics is dedicated to the health and well-being of pregnant and fetal patients, mistreatment of obstetric patients should never be an intended component of professional obstetric care. It is necessary to move beyond the term "obstetric violence" in discourse and acknowledge and address the structural dimensions of abusive reproductive practices. Similarly, we do not use the term "psychiatric violence" for appropriately used professional procedures in psychiatry, such as electroshock therapy, or use the term "neurosurgical violence" when drilling a burr hole. There is an ongoing need to raise awareness about the potential mistreatment of obstetric patients within the context of abuse against women in general. Using the term "mistreatment in healthcare" instead of the more limited term "obstetric violence" is more appropriate and applies to all specialties when there is unprofessional abuse and mistreatment, such as biased care, neglect, emotional abuse (verbal), or physical abuse, including performing procedures that are unnecessary, unindicated, or without informed patient consent. Healthcare providers must promote unbiased, respectful, and patient-centered professional care; provide an ethical framework for all healthcare personnel; and work toward systemic change to prevent any mistreatment or abuse in our specialty.

Development and Validation of the American Heart Association's PREVENT Equations

BACKGROUND

Multivariable equations are recommended by primary prevention guidelines to assess absolute risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, current equations have several limitations. Therefore, we developed and validated the American Heart Association Predicting Risk of CVD EVENTs (PREVENT) equations among US adults 30 to 79 years of age without known CVD.

METHODS

The derivation sample included individual-level participant data from 25 data sets (N=3 281 919) between 1992 and 2017. The primary outcome was CVD (atherosclerotic CVD and heart failure). Predictors included traditional risk factors (smoking status, systolic blood pressure, cholesterol, antihypertensive or statin use, and diabetes) and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Models were sex-specific, race-free, developed on the age scale, and adjusted for competing risk of non-CVD death. Analyses were conducted in each data set and meta-analyzed. Discrimination was assessed using the Harrell C-statistic. Calibration was calculated as the slope of the observed versus predicted risk by decile. Additional equations to predict each CVD subtype (atherosclerotic CVD and heart failure) and include optional predictors (urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio and hemoglobin A1c), and social deprivation index were also developed. External validation was performed in 3 330 085 participants from 21 additional data sets.

RESULTS

Among 6 612 004 adults included, mean±SD age was 53±12 years, and 56% were women. Over a mean±SD follow-up of 4.8±3.1 years, there were 211 515 incident total CVD events. The median C-statistics in external validation for CVD were 0.794 (interquartile interval, 0.763-0.809) in female and 0.757 (0.727-0.778) in male participants. The calibration slopes were 1.03 (interquartile interval, 0.81-1.16) and 0.94 (0.81-1.13) among female and male participants, respectively. Similar estimates for discrimination and calibration were observed for atherosclerotic CVD- and heart failure-specific models. The improvement in discrimination was small but statistically significant when urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, hemoglobin A1c, and social deprivation index were added together to the base model to total CVD (ΔC-statistic [interquartile interval] 0.004 [0.004-0.005] and 0.005 [0.004-0.007] among female and male participants, respectively). Calibration improved significantly when the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio was added to the base model among those with marked albuminuria (>300 mg/g; 1.05 [0.84-1.20] versus 1.39 [1.14-1.65]; P=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

PREVENT equations accurately and precisely predicted risk for incident CVD and CVD subtypes in a large, diverse, and contemporary sample of US adults by using routinely available clinical variables.

Novel Prediction Equations for Absolute Risk Assessment of Total Cardiovascular Disease Incorporating Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome is a novel construct recently defined by the American Heart Association in response to the high prevalence of metabolic and kidney disease. Epidemiological data demonstrate higher absolute risk of both atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) and heart failure as an individual progresses from CKM stage 0 to stage 3, but optimal strategies for risk assessment need to be refined. Absolute risk assessment with the goal to match type and intensity of interventions with predicted risk and expected treatment benefit remains the cornerstone of primary prevention. Given the growing number of therapies in our armamentarium that simultaneously address all 3 CKM axes, novel risk prediction equations are needed that incorporate predictors and outcomes relevant to the CKM context. This should also include social determinants of health, which are key upstream drivers of CVD, to more equitably estimate and address risk. This scientific statement summarizes the background, rationale, and clinical implications for the newly developed sex-specific, race-free risk equations: PREVENT (AHA Predicting Risk of CVD Events). The PREVENT equations enable 10- and 30-year risk estimates for total CVD (composite of atherosclerotic CVD and heart failure), include estimated glomerular filtration rate as a predictor, and adjust for competing risk of non-CVD death among adults 30 to 79 years of age. Additional models accommodate enhanced predictive utility with the addition of CKM factors when clinically indicated for measurement (urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio and hemoglobin A1c) or social determinants of health (social deprivation index) when available. Approaches to implement risk-based prevention using PREVENT across various settings are discussed.

Genetic counseling practices among outpatient obstetric providers in the Northeast

BACKGROUND

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends all pregnant people be offered genetic screening and diagnostic testing regardless of risk factors. Previous studies have demonstrated disparities in referrals for genetic testing by race outside of pregnancy, but limited data exist regarding genetic counseling practices during pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe how patient, provider, and practice demographics influence the offering of diagnostic prenatal genetic testing by outpatient prenatal care providers.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a multicenter anonymous survey study conducted between October 2021 and March 2022. Outpatient prenatal care providers, including family medicine and obstetrics attendings, residents, maternal-fetal medicine fellows, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and midwives, were surveyed about their genetic counseling practices and practice demographics. The primary outcome was the proportion of respondents who answered "yes, all patients" to the survey question "Do you offer diagnostic genetic testing to all patients?" The secondary outcomes included the association between patient and practice demographics and offering diagnostic testing. Diagnostic testing was defined as chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis. Screening genetic tests were defined as sequential screen, quadruple screen, cell-free DNA screening, or "other." The chi-square test or Fisher exact test was used as appropriate. For the outcome answers of diagnostic testing, logistic regression was performed to assess the association between the answer of diagnostic genetic testing and the current training level of providers, race and ethnicity, and insurance status variables. Multivariable analysis was performed to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 635 outpatient prenatal care providers across 7 sites were sent the survey. Overall, 419 providers responded for a total response rate of 66%. Of the providers who responded, most were attendings (44.9%), followed by residents (37.5%). Providers indicated the race, insurance status, and primary language of their patient population. Screening genetic testing was offered by 98% of providers. Per provider report, 37% offered diagnostic testing to all patients, 18% did not offer it at all, and 44% only offered it if certain patient factors were present. Moreover, 54.8% of attendings reported universally offering diagnostic testing. On univariable analysis, residents were less likely to offer diagnostic testing than attendings (odds ratio, 0.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.30). Providers who serve non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic Black, and other Hispanic patients were less likely to report offering diagnostic testing than other patient populations. Providers who served non-Hispanic Whites were more likely to offer diagnostic testing (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-3.39). Patient populations who were primarily privately insured were more likely to be offered diagnostic testing compared with primarily publicly insured patients (odds ratio, 6.25; 95% confidence interval, 3.60-10.85). Providers who served a primarily English-speaking population were more likely to offer diagnostic genetic testing than other patient populations (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.69). On multivariable analysis, the factors that remained significantly associated with offering diagnostic testing included level of training (resident odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.62; P=.0006; advanced practice provider odds ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.82; P=.02), having at least one-third of the patient population identify as "other Hispanic" (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.77; P=.005), and having private insurance instead of public insurance (primarily private insured odds ratio, 2.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-6.74; P=.02).

CONCLUSION

Although offering genetic screening and diagnostic testing to all patients is recommended, no provider group universally offers diagnostic testing. Providers who serve populations from a racial and ethnic minority, those with public insurance, and those whose primary language is not English are less likely to report universally offering diagnostic genetic testing.

Postpartum readmission for hypertension and pre-eclampsia: development and validation of a predictive model

OBJECTIVE

To develop a model for predicting postpartum readmission for hypertension and pre-eclampsia at delivery discharge and assess external validation or model transportability across clinical sites.

DESIGN

Prediction model using data available in the electronic health record from two clinical sites.

SETTING

Two tertiary care health systems from the Southern (2014-2015) and Northeastern USA (2017-2019).

POPULATION

A total of 28 201 postpartum individuals: 10 100 in the South and 18 101 in the Northeast.

METHODS

An internal-external cross validation (IECV) approach was used to assess external validation or model transportability across the two sites. In IECV, data from each health system were first used to develop and internally validate a prediction model; each model was then externally validated using the other health system. Models were fit using penalised logistic regression, and accuracy was estimated using discrimination (concordance index), calibration curves and decision curves. Internal validation was performed using bootstrapping with bias-corrected performance measures. Decision curve analysis was used to display potential cut points where the model provided net benefit for clinical decision-making.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome was postpartum readmission for either hypertension or pre-eclampsia <6 weeks after delivery.

RESULTS

The postpartum readmission rate for hypertension and pre-eclampsia overall was 0.9% (0.3% and 1.2% by site, respectively). The final model included six variables: age, parity, maximum postpartum diastolic blood pressure, birthweight, pre-eclampsia before discharge and delivery mode (and interaction between pre-eclampsia × delivery mode). Discrimination was adequate at both health systems on internal validation (c-statistic South: 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-0.89; Northeast: 0.74; 95% CI 0.74-0.74). In IECV, discrimination was inconsistent across sites, with improved discrimination for the Northeastern model on the Southern cohort (c-statistic 0.61 and 0.86, respectively), but calibration was not adequate. Next, model updating was performed using the combined dataset to develop a new model. This final model had adequate discrimination (c-statistic: 0.80, 95% CI 0.80-0.80), moderate calibration (intercept -0.153, slope 0.960, Emax 0.042) and provided superior net benefit at clinical decision-making thresholds between 1% and 7% for interventions preventing readmission. An online calculator is provided here.

CONCLUSIONS

Postpartum readmission for hypertension and pre-eclampsia may be accurately predicted but further model validation is needed. Model updating using data from multiple sites will be needed before use across clinical settings.

Low-dose aspirin and racial disparities in spontaneous preterm delivery in low-risk individuals

BACKGROUND

Preterm birth is a leading cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. There are significant racial disparities in the rates of preterm delivery in the United States, with Black individuals at disproportionately higher risk than their White counterparts. Although low-dose aspirin is currently under investigation for reducing the rates of preterm delivery, limited data are available on how the use of low-dose aspirin might affect racial and ethnic disparities in the rates of preterm delivery.

OBJECTIVE

Our group and others have shown that low-dose aspirin decreases spontaneous preterm delivery in low-risk parturients. This study aimed to examine whether the relationship between low-dose aspirin and the risk of spontaneous preterm delivery is modified by race and ethnicity.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial examining low-dose aspirin for preeclampsia prevention in low-risk nulliparous individuals. The parent trial defined low risk as the absence of preexisting hypertension or other medical comorbidities. Participants received 60-mg aspirin or placebo between 13 and 25 weeks of gestation. Here, multiple pregnancies, fetal anomalies, terminations or abortions at <20 weeks of gestation, and participants with previous miscarriages were excluded. Our exposure, race and ethnicity, was self-reported in the parent trial and categorized as non-Hispanic White, Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and other. The primary outcome was spontaneous preterm delivery at <34 weeks of gestation; the secondary outcomes included spontaneous preterm delivery at <37 weeks of gestation and all preterm deliveries at <34 and <37 weeks of gestation. Fit logistic regression models were used to examine how the use of low-dose aspirin modified the relationship between race and ethnicity and preterm delivery, adjusting for confounders. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses were performed to compare the rates of preterm delivery by race and ethnicity.

RESULTS

Of note, 2528 of 3171 parent study participants were included in this analysis. Of the participants, 425 (16.8%) were White, 819 (32.4%) were Hispanic, 1265 (50%) were Black, and 19 (0.8%) were other. The baseline characteristics differed among racial and ethnic groups, including maternal age, body mass index, education level, marital status, tobacco and alcohol use, and pregnancy loss. The rate of spontaneous preterm delivery at <34 weeks of gestation was significantly higher in Black participants (2.8%) than in White (1.2%) and Hispanic (1.2%) participants (P=.04). Logistical regression analysis showed that Black race was no longer an independent risk factor for spontaneous preterm delivery at <34 weeks of gestation when controlling for low-dose aspirin (adjusted odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-4.40). A similar pattern was found for spontaneous preterm delivery at <37 weeks of gestation and preterm delivery at <34 and <37 weeks of gestation. In our sensitivity analyses, spontaneous preterm delivery at <34 weeks of gestation differed by race and ethnicity in the placebo group (P=.01) but did not differ in the low-dose aspirin group (P=.90).

CONCLUSION

The use of low-dose aspirin mitigated racial disparities in spontaneous preterm delivery at <34 weeks of gestation. Additional investigation is warranted to assess the reproducibility of our findings.

Why Causation Matters: Rethinking "Race" as a Risk Factor

Although it is tempting to construe the correlation between Black "race" and higher rates of preterm birth as causal, this logic is flawed. Worse, the continued use of Black "race" as a risk factor for preterm birth is actively harmful. Using Black "race" as a risk factor suggests a causal relationship that does not exist and, critically, obscures what actually causes Black patients to be more vulnerable to poorer maternal and infant outcomes: anti-Black racism. Failing to name anti-Black racism as the root cause of Black patients' vulnerability conceals key pathways and tempts us to construe Black "race" as immutably related to higher rates of preterm birth. The result is that we overlook two highly treatable pathways-chronic stress and implicit bias-through which anti-Black racism negatively contributes to birth. Thus, clinicians may underuse important tools to reduce stress from racism and discrimination while missing opportunities to address implicit bias within their practices and institutions. Fortunately, researchers, physicians, clinicians, and medical staff can positively affect Black maternal and infant health by shifting our causal paradigm. By eliminating the use of Black "race" as a risk factor and naming anti-Black racism as the root cause of Black patients' vulnerability, we can practice anti-racist maternity care and take a critical step toward achieving birth equity.

An interactive childbirth education platform to improve pregnancy-related anxiety: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Perinatal anxiety is one of the most common conditions during pregnancy and is associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Interventions that are focused on childbirth education and health literacy have been shown to help decrease pregnancy-related anxiety. These programs, however, have limitations. Transportation, childcare, and work conflicts pose barriers to patients. In addition, many of these programs have not been studied in high-risk patients, who are most at risk for pregnancy-related anxiety. Thus, it is uncertain whether an online childbirth education course can help to improve outcomes in a high-risk patient population.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare an interactive online platform for childbirth education (Birthly) with usual prenatal education on anxiety, emergency healthcare utilization, and delivery outcomes for high-risk pregnancies.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a randomized trial comparing an interactive online childbirth education platform combined with usual prenatal education (intervention) with usual prenatal education alone (usual care). Nulliparous, English-speaking patients with internet access and a high-risk pregnancy (medical or mental health disorders) were included. Patients in 2 urban clinics that serve underresourced patients were enrolled at <20 weeks of gestation. The intervention included 3 interactive courses (prenatal bootcamp, breastfeeding, newborn care) and access to a clinician-moderated online community. Pregnancy-related Anxiety Scale questionnaires were administered at randomization and at 34 to 40 weeks. The primary outcome was third-trimester Pregnancy-related Anxiety Scale score. Secondary outcomes included change in Pregnancy-related Anxiety Scale score, unscheduled emergency visits, delivery, and postpartum outcomes. To demonstrate a 15% decrease in Pregnancy-related Anxiety Scale score, 37 patients would be needed per group. Accounting for a 20% loss to follow-up rate, we planned to recruit 90 total patients or 45 per group.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients were randomized with no differences in demographics or baseline Pregnancy-related Anxiety Scale scores. Most patients self-identified as Black and were publicly insured. More than 60% of patients (62.2%) in the intervention arm completed at least 1 Birthly course. Patients in the intervention arm had significantly lower third-trimester Pregnancy-related Anxiety Scale scores (indicating lower anxiety) compared with those receiving usual care (44.6±7.3 vs 53.9±13.8; P<.01), with a decrease in score of 8.3 points vs 0.7 for usual care (P<.01). Patients in the intervention arm also had fewer emergency visits (1 [0-2] vs 2 [1-3]; P=.003). There were no differences in delivery outcomes. Patients in the intervention arm were more likely to breastfeed at delivery, although this was not different by the postpartum visit. Finally, patients who received the intervention were more likely to be satisfied with their childbirth education (94.6% vs 64.9%; P<.01).

CONCLUSION

An interactive online childbirth education platform can reduce pregnancy-related anxiety and emergency healthcare utilization while improving satisfaction in a high-risk patient population.

Bacterial vaginosis: a review of approaches to treatment and prevention

Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is a common cause of vaginitis worldwide and is associated with serious reproductive health outcomes, including increased risk of preterm birth, sexually transmitted infections, and pelvic inflammatory disease. The current and only FDA-approved treatment regimens for BV are antibiotics, such as metronidazole and clindamycin. Antibiotics provide a short-term cure for bacterial vaginosis; however, fail to provide a consistent long-term cure for many women. Fifty to eighty percent of women experience a BV recurrence within a year of completing antibiotic treatment. This may be because after antibiotic treatment, beneficial strains of Lactobacillus, such as L. crispatus, do not recolonize the vagina. In the absence of an effective long-term cure, patients, providers, and researchers are exploring different approaches to treatment and prevention, resulting in a rapid evolution of perspectives on BV pathogenesis and approaches to management. Current areas of investigation for BV management include probiotics, vaginal microbiome transplantation, pH modulation, and biofilm disruption. Behavioral modifications that may help include smoking cessation, condom use and hormonal contraception. Additional strategies considered by many people include dietary modification, non-medical vaginally applied products, choice of lubricant, and treatments from medical practices outside of allopathic medicine. This review aims to provide a comprehensive and up to date outline of the landscape of ongoing and potential treatment and prevention strategies for BV.

Race-Based Care and Beliefs Regarding the Etiology of Racial Differences in Health Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Physicians' perspectives regarding the etiology of racial health differences may be associated with their use of race in clinical practice (race-based practice). This study evaluates whether attributing racial differences in health to genetics, culture, or social conditions is associated with race-based practice.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional analysis, conducted in 2022, of the Council of Academic Family Medicine Education Research Alliance 2021 general membership survey. Only actively practicing U.S. physicians were included. The survey included demographic questions; the Racial Attributes in Clinical Evaluation (RACE) scale (higher scores imply greater race-based practice); and 3 questions regarding beliefs that racial differences in genetics, culture (e.g., health beliefs), or social conditions (e.g., education) explained racial differences in health. Three multivariable linear regressions were used to evaluate the relationship between RACE scores and beliefs regarding the etiology of racial differences in health.

RESULTS

Of the 4,314 survey recipients, 949 (22%) responded, of whom 689 were actively practicing U.S. physicians. In multivariable regressions controlling for age, gender, race, ethnicity, and practice characteristics, a higher RACE score was associated with a greater belief that differences in genetics (β=3.57; 95% CI=3.19, 3.95) and culture (β=1.57; 95% CI=0.99, 2.16)-in but not social conditions-explained differences in health.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians who believed that genetic or cultural differences between racial groups explained racial differences in health outcomes were more likely to use race in clinical care. Further research is needed to determine how race is differentially applied in clinical care on the basis of the belief in its genetic or cultural significance.

Undetected Fetal Growth Restriction During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who delivered singleton, small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonates between April and June 2019, before the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (pre-COVID-19), and between April and July 2020, during the pandemic (COVID-19 epoch). The primary outcome was the rate of undetected antenatal fetal growth restriction (FGR) in the two periods. A total of 268 patients met inclusion criteria. Patients who delivered small-for-gestational-age neonates during the COVID-19 epoch were significantly more likely to have undetected FGR compared with those who delivered pre-COVID-19 (70.1% vs 58.1%, P =.04). Patients who delivered SGA neonates during the COVID-19 epoch had more telehealth visits but fewer in-person prenatal visits, recorded fundal height measurements, and growth ultrasonograms. As telemedicine continues to be incorporated into prenatal care, these data may lend further support toward self-assessment of fundal height or routine third-trimester growth ultrasonograms to identify fetal growth abnormalities.