Cargando…

Balancing risks: making decisions for maternal treatment without data on fetal safety

Challenges arise when treatment to improve maternal health brings the possibility of risk to fetal health. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine is the most recent, but hardly the only, example. Because pregnant patients are often specifically excluded from trials of new therapies, this is...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Minkoff, Howard, Ecker, Jeffrey
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8054615/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33539824
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.01.025
_version_ 1783680318712053760
author Minkoff, Howard
Ecker, Jeffrey
author_facet Minkoff, Howard
Ecker, Jeffrey
author_sort Minkoff, Howard
collection PubMed
description Challenges arise when treatment to improve maternal health brings the possibility of risk to fetal health. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine is the most recent, but hardly the only, example. Because pregnant patients are often specifically excluded from trials of new therapies, this is often the dilemma that patients and providers face when considering new treatments. In this study, we used the COVID-19 vaccine as an exemplar to question the broader issue of how society, in general, and obstetricians, in particular, should balance obligations to pregnant women’s right of access to new therapeutic agents with the physician’s desire to protect the fetus from potential risks. We will argue that in almost all circumstances (with few exceptions, as will also be discussed), maternal benefit and respect for autonomy create the uncertainty that absent safety data bring. Consequently, if pregnant women choose to try new interventions and treatments, such as the COVID-19 vaccination, they should be offered those new regimens and their decision supported. In addition, we will argue that the right solution to avoid the dilemma of absent data is to include pregnant individuals in clinical trials studying new treatments, drugs, and other therapies. We will also discuss the basis for our opinion, which are mainstream obstetrical ethics, precedents in law (supreme court ruling that forbids companies to exclude women from jobs that might pose a risk to the fetus), and historic events (thalidomide). The ethical framework includes the supposition that sacrifice to improve fetal outcome is a virtue and not a mandate. Denying a pregnant patient treatment because of threats to their life can create absurd and paradoxical consequences. Either requiring abortion or premature delivery before proceeding with treatments to optimize maternal health, or risking a patient’s own life and ability to parent a child by delaying treatment brings clear and significant risks to fetal and/or neonatal outcomes. With rare exceptions, properly and ethically balancing such consequential actions cannot be undertaken without considering the values and goals of the pregnant patient. Therefore, active participation of both the pregnant patient and their physician in shared decision making is needed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8054615
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80546152021-04-20 Balancing risks: making decisions for maternal treatment without data on fetal safety Minkoff, Howard Ecker, Jeffrey Am J Obstet Gynecol Clinical Opinion Challenges arise when treatment to improve maternal health brings the possibility of risk to fetal health. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine is the most recent, but hardly the only, example. Because pregnant patients are often specifically excluded from trials of new therapies, this is often the dilemma that patients and providers face when considering new treatments. In this study, we used the COVID-19 vaccine as an exemplar to question the broader issue of how society, in general, and obstetricians, in particular, should balance obligations to pregnant women’s right of access to new therapeutic agents with the physician’s desire to protect the fetus from potential risks. We will argue that in almost all circumstances (with few exceptions, as will also be discussed), maternal benefit and respect for autonomy create the uncertainty that absent safety data bring. Consequently, if pregnant women choose to try new interventions and treatments, such as the COVID-19 vaccination, they should be offered those new regimens and their decision supported. In addition, we will argue that the right solution to avoid the dilemma of absent data is to include pregnant individuals in clinical trials studying new treatments, drugs, and other therapies. We will also discuss the basis for our opinion, which are mainstream obstetrical ethics, precedents in law (supreme court ruling that forbids companies to exclude women from jobs that might pose a risk to the fetus), and historic events (thalidomide). The ethical framework includes the supposition that sacrifice to improve fetal outcome is a virtue and not a mandate. Denying a pregnant patient treatment because of threats to their life can create absurd and paradoxical consequences. Either requiring abortion or premature delivery before proceeding with treatments to optimize maternal health, or risking a patient’s own life and ability to parent a child by delaying treatment brings clear and significant risks to fetal and/or neonatal outcomes. With rare exceptions, properly and ethically balancing such consequential actions cannot be undertaken without considering the values and goals of the pregnant patient. Therefore, active participation of both the pregnant patient and their physician in shared decision making is needed. Elsevier Inc. 2021-05 2021-02-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8054615/ /pubmed/33539824 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.01.025 Text en © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
spellingShingle Clinical Opinion
Minkoff, Howard
Ecker, Jeffrey
Balancing risks: making decisions for maternal treatment without data on fetal safety
title Balancing risks: making decisions for maternal treatment without data on fetal safety
title_full Balancing risks: making decisions for maternal treatment without data on fetal safety
title_fullStr Balancing risks: making decisions for maternal treatment without data on fetal safety
title_full_unstemmed Balancing risks: making decisions for maternal treatment without data on fetal safety
title_short Balancing risks: making decisions for maternal treatment without data on fetal safety
title_sort balancing risks: making decisions for maternal treatment without data on fetal safety
topic Clinical Opinion
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8054615/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33539824
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.01.025
work_keys_str_mv AT minkoffhoward balancingrisksmakingdecisionsformaternaltreatmentwithoutdataonfetalsafety
AT eckerjeffrey balancingrisksmakingdecisionsformaternaltreatmentwithoutdataonfetalsafety