Abortion pill still under legal threat despite US Supreme Court ruling

 The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Thursday keeping the abortion drug mifepristone on the market with no new restrictions ends one chapter of the legal fight over the drug, but efforts by abortion opponents to restrict its use may not be over.

In rejecting a lawsuit by anti-abortion medical groups and doctors, the Supreme Court did not rule on their claim that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration acted improperly when it eased restrictions on mifepristone, including allowing it to be prescribed by telemedicine and dispensed by mail.

Instead, the court found that they had not shown that they had suffered the kind of harm that would allow them to bring a lawsuit. The plaintiffs had argued that anti-abortion doctors were harmed by the pill's availability because they might be forced to violate their conscience by treating patients who developed complications after taking it. But the Supreme Court decided they had not offered any evidence that any doctor had actually faced that situation or was likely to in the future.

Normally, that would be the end of the case. Last November, however, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas, where the lawsuit was originally filed, allowed three Republican-led states that ban abortion to join the case as plaintiffs.

Those states, Idaho, Missouri and Kansas, had asked to join the Supreme Court appeal, but the Supreme Court refused, leaving their claims pending in the Kacsmaryk's lower court. Now, they can try to go forward on their own.

Mifepristone is the first part of a two-drug regimen used for medication abortion, which is approved by the FDA to terminate pregnancy in the first 10 weeks. Medication abortion accounted for more than 60% of U.S. abortions last year.

The drug has drawn increasing attention as Republican-led states have banned or restricted abortion in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 ruling reversing Roe v. Wade, its longstanding precedent that had guaranteed abortion rights nationwide.

The dwindling availability of abortion in much of the country has led some women to obtain abortion pills in defiance of laws in their states. Several Democratic-led states have passed expansive shield laws intended to allow doctors to prescribe and mail the drug across state lines.

Idaho, Missouri and Kansas claim that their residents had obtained mifepristone elsewhere or received it illegally in the mail, leading public hospitals to incur costs dealing with complications of medication abortions.

That theory of standing is also untested, but Kacsmaryk has already shown that he is open to it by allowing the states to join the case in the first place. President Joe Biden's administration has argued that the claim to legal standing made by the states, like the claim made by the original plaintiffs, is based on unsupported hypotheticals.

Kacsmaryk, a former conservative Christian activist, has also proven broadly sympathetic to abortion foes, likely the reason they chose to sue in his court. In his original ruling in the case, the judge went further than restoring old restrictions on mifepristone, instead suspending its approval, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had issued in 2000, altogether.

On appeal, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the lawsuit was too late to challenge that decades-old approval, and the Supreme Court declined to review that finding, meaning that the original approval is likely safe. But if Kacsmaryk lets the states go forward, he would be free to impose the later restrictions once again.

That would trigger another round of appeals to the 5th Circuit and possibly the Supreme Court, dragging out the uncertainty and confusion around the pill for months or years.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/abortion-pill-still-under-legal-150450003.html

'Pro-Trump influencers fire up fears of migrant 'invasion' ahead of U.S. election'

 One late afternoon in mid-May, a half dozen Hispanic day laborers were paid $20 each to parade in front of the White House on camera, holding signs with slogans like "I Love Biden" and "I Need Work Permit for My Family."

The stunt was orchestrated by Nick Shirley, a pro-Trump online influencer who often asks migrants on camera if they support Democratic President Joe Biden or think he made it easier for them to come to the U.S.

"We want to take you to the White House," Shirley told the men he recruited at a Home Depot parking lot, where day laborers typically wait for jobs, in a video later posted to YouTube. "What (Biden) did for migrants is very kind, right? Letting everyone come in? So we are going to show him and say thank you."

Shirley, a 22-year-old with more than 318,000 followers on social media, is among a new class of influencers supportive of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump who are helping shape the immigration debate as the U.S. election campaign heats up.

Their self-shot dispatches from American cities and the southern border with Mexico portray migrants in the country illegally as dangerous and burdensome, and part of a plan to grow the ranks of Democratic voters.

Biden took office in 2021 vowing to reverse many of Trump's restrictive border policies, but he has struggled with record numbers of migrants caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border on his watch.

While it is difficult to quantify the influencers' impact on the debate, immigration is a top election issue for voters and a central plank of Trump's campaign to reclaim the presidency in November. About three-quarters of Republicans in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in May said migrants in the U.S. illegally "are a danger to public safety." Independents, who could decide the next occupant of the Oval Office, were split on the issue.

While Shirley started by making prank videos as a high schooler in Utah and only recently began focusing on illegal immigration, other pro-Trump influencers are more established and explicitly partisan.

One of the most prominent is Ben Bergquam, a self-described opinion journalist who hosts the TV show "Law and Border" on the Real America's Voice digital media platform and appears regularly on a show hosted by former Trump adviser Steve Bannon.

Bergquam often links migrants to crime – another dominant theme of Trump's campaign, even though many academics who study the issue say there is no evidence to show immigrants commit crimes at higher rates than native-born Americans.

A Reuters reporter joined Bergquam during an April visit to New York, where he approached a group of men standing outside the Row NYC, a 1,331-room hotel in Midtown Manhattan now used as a shelter for migrants. He was hauling a tripod and a video camera, with a black "Trump 2024" cap clipped to his belt.

He smiled and laughed with several of the migrants and swapped stories with one Venezuelan man about their respective trips to the Darien Gap, the jungle that blankets the Colombia-Panama border and a major route for migrants heading to America.

Speaking into his camera moments before, though, the 41-year-old had struck a less amicable tone, describing migrants arriving in the U.S. illegally as an "invasion" and saying they were driving a surge in violence.

Outside a second migrant shelter later that day, Bergquam criticized Biden for allowing in migrants unable to sustain themselves, including mothers with young children, and "young thugs out in the street."

"You basically took the ills of the world, put them into a blender and turn the blender on in a city that's already been crime-ridden," he told viewers.

"I don't blame the people that are coming. But I blame the people that are inviting them."

Bergquam's violence claim is not supported by crime data for New York City, which has received more than 202,000 migrants since the Republican-led state of Texas began busing them to Democratic-led cities from the southern border in 2022.

While arrests for serious crimes across the city rose in 2022, they remained steady in 2023 and have fallen slightly in 2024, according to New York City Police Department statistics.

Asked about the lack of evidence of a surge in violence, Arkansas-based Bergquam said that migrant crimes are being underreported, blaming the NYPD's policy of not asking criminal suspects or victims about their immigration status. He said that every crime committed by an immigrant in the U.S. illegally could be prevented with stricter policies.

Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said Democratic-run cities purposefully do not document when crimes are committed by migrants in the U.S. illegally to conceal the problem and that Trump plans to launch the biggest deportation effort in U.S. history.

Biden campaign spokesperson Kevin Munoz said that Americans want solutions for the country's "broken immigration system" but that Trump and his political allies want "chaos and partisan politics."

FOX NEWS APPEARANCES

Reuters identified at least six influencers focused on immigration-related videos, boasting collectively over 1.4 million social media followers. Their videos are posted on platforms like YouTube, X, TikTok, Facebook and Rumble.

The videos are frequently shared, amplifying their message. In a February video from Denver, Shirley asked migrants if they supported Biden and several said they did. Shirley posted about it on X, saying "Confirmed: Migrants for Biden 2024." Elon Musk, X's owner who has 182 million followers, responded to a post highlighting Shirley's report with an exclamation mark.

Trump and fellow Republicans have alleged that large numbers of noncitizens vote in federal elections and have pushed to pass legislation banning the practice even though it is already illegal and rare.

Right-leaning outlets such as Fox News, the most-watched U.S. cable news network, have featured some of the influencers' clips and aired interviews with at least three of them.

Shirley told Reuters his content appeals to people who don't normally watch TV news and appreciate his unpolished style.

"People my age are like, 'I had no idea this was even happening'," he said, referring to his videos focused on migrants arriving in U.S. cities and at the border.

He said he did not think migrants living in the U.S. illegally would try to vote in November but that "if they are given the opportunity to vote, they're going to vote for Biden, because he's the reason they're here."

Asked about whether he exploited people in videos like the White House stunt, he added: "I wanted to give the migrants an opportunity to voice their opinions."

OBJECTIVE: GET TRUMP RE-ELECTED

Bergquam has been covering the border for years and has gained influence and credibility among prominent Trump backers. He and his media company, Frontline America, command almost 540,000 followers on social media.

He told Reuters that he is motivated by protecting America. "Ultimately, my objective is to get President Trump re-elected and save this country," he said.

Among the migrants Bergquam spoke with outside a New York City shelter in April was Carolina Sinisterra, a Colombian woman selling empanadas on the sidewalk.

Sinisterra, 40, told Reuters she had fled her home in the city of Medellin last year with her 12-year-old son after she was threatened for supporting an opposition political party.

She is living in the U.S. illegally while pursuing her asylum case and works as a waitress in a Colombian restaurant in Queens.

"I feel immensely grateful to be able to be here," she said.

Alex Scott, an assistant professor at the University of Iowa who specializes in the depiction of migrants in the media, said Bergquam and the other influencers appeal to people who distrust mainstream media because they appear to be independent truth tellers without any commercial interests swaying them.

However, they over-simplify illegal immigration in a way that presents migrants as a danger, he said. "One of the easiest ways to stoke fear in the heart of America is to say there's somebody coming to take something that's yours."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pro-trump-influencers-fire-fears-100155418.html

Ford Ends EV-Certified Dealer Program, CNBC Reports

 -- Ford Motor is terminating its EV-certified dealership program that required owners to invest more than $1 million to sell electric vehicles and open sales rights to all dealers, according to a report by CNBC.

-- Chief Operating Officer Marin Gjaja said at a media briefing that the company will sunset the Model e Dealerships Program, which included about half of Ford's 2,800 U.S. dealers.

-- The decision to end the program comes amid slowing growth of demand for EVs, the report said.

https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/202406135889/ford-ends-ev-certified-dealer-program-cnbc-reports

Can-Fite IRB OK for Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer with Namodenoson in Phase IIa Study

 Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd. (NYSE American: CANF) (TASE: CANF), a biotechnology company advancing a pipeline of proprietary small molecule drugs that address oncological and inflammatory diseases, today announced that it received an approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Rabin Medical Center, a leading medical institution in Israel where the study will be conducted. The approved protocol has been submitted now to the Ministry of Health (MOH).

"This Phase IIa study is designed as an open-label one, enabling us to assess the safety and potential efficacy of Namodenoson in pancreatic cancer patients whose disease has progressed despite first-line treatment. Our positive Namodenoson data in pancreatic carcinoma experimental models together with the positive data in the Phase II advanced liver cancer study, with a patient showing overall survival of >7 years, encouraged us to initiate the current Phase IIa study," stated Can-Fite’s Medical Director Dr. Michael Silverman.

The protocol of the clinical study is CF102-222PC entitled: "A Phase II Open-Label Study of the Safety and Activity of Namodenoson in the Treatment of Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma," ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06387342.

The study is a multicenter open-label trial in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma whose disease has progressed on at least first line therapy or who refuse standard treatment. The trial will evaluate the safety, clinical activity, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of Namodenoson in this population. All patients will receive oral Namodenoson 25 mg administered twice daily for consecutive 28-day cycles. Patients will be evaluated regularly for safety. Approximately 20 evaluable patients will be enrolled. The primary objective of this trial is to characterize the safety profile of Namodenoson and the secondary objective is to evaluate the clinical activity as determined by the Objective Response Rate (ORR) using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1), Progression-Free Survival (PFS), Disease Control Rate (DCR), Duration of Response (DoR), and Overall Survival (OS).

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fite-received-irb-approval-treatment-110000599.html

'Hospital Stops PAs From Performing Invasive Procedures'

 Wynn Hospital in Utica, New York, will no longer allow physician assistants (PAs) to perform invasive procedures, according to news reports.

"This includes the operating room, all procedural areas, and the bedside. Please note regular PA duties, however, may continue. More information will be provided once it becomes available," read an internal memorandum sent to medical staff on June 6 that was first reported by the Daily Sentinelopens in a new tab or window. The news organization obtained a copy of the memo and verified it with health system officials.

In an emailed statement, Patricia Charvat, senior vice president of marketing and strategy for the hospital's parent company Mohawk Valley Healthcare System (MVHS), noted that its Quality Department is reviewing and updating credentials of its medical staff.

"As part of that review, the ability of physician assistants to perform procedures in the operating room or at the bedside at the Wynn Hospital has been temporarily put on hold until credentialing to perform these procedures has been confirmed," the statement said. "This has not impacted patient care or surgeries."

The halt on invasive procedures performed by physician assistants at Wynn Hospital comes a month after open-heart surgeries there were put on hold in the wake of an immediate jeopardy citation from CMS in early May, according to opens in a new tab or windowthe Observer-Dispatchopens in a new tab or window.

Regarding the pause on open-heart surgeries, the hospital started a 40-day review periodopens in a new tab or window last week, with surgeries expected to resume at the end of the review period. It's not clear whether the halt on invasive procedures by physician assistants is related to the review of open-heart surgeries.

In announcing the hold on open-heart surgeries last month, MVHS stated that quality of care as well as patient safety were the top priorities for it and its flagship Wynn Hospital.

"MVHS leadership, medical staff and the board of directors have been looking into the strength and quality of open heart surgery at the Wynn Hospital," the health system's statement continued. "The New York State Department of Health, during a site survey this week, also expressed concerns about the open heart surgery program. An external organization is being brought on by MVHS to conduct a review aimed at strengthening the service and re-opening as quickly as possible."

Physician assistants work under the supervision of a physician. Some PA advocacy groups are trying to rebrand the profession as "physician associate" to reflect their scope of practice -- with Oregon being the first stateopens in a new tab or window to legally allow the title change this year.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/110615

AMA Recommends US Med License Exam Step 3 Transition to Pass/Fail

 Should the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 3 be scored? Members of the American Medical Association (AMA) don't think so, and passed policy to that effect during the annual House of Delegates

opens in a new tab or window meeting in Chicago on Tuesday.

Members also grappled with the question of how to manage unmatched graduate physicians, ultimately deciding the issue needs more study.

Debating Changes to Step 3

Doug Myers, MD, who spoke on behalf of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, opposed the idea of switching from a numerically scored Step 3 exam to a pass/fail exam. He offered an amendment striking a single provision of the version of the policy resolution put forward by the reference committee (that was largely similar to the original), which called for the change.

Step 3 is the final required exam needed to obtain physician licensure, Myers said. While his delegation agreed that the exam should not create "undue burdens of time or expense" for residents, a scored exam would not impact either, he noted.

"No patient will ever ask a doctor [about] the scores, but it does provide additional helpful information for residency and fellowship directors," Myers argued, as well as a "level playing field" within a single specialty.

Dayna Isaacs, MD, MPH, a delegate for the Resident and Fellow Section and primary author of the resolution, opposed the amendment, which she said tests only general medicine concepts in primary care and does not accurately reflect the "complexity of modern medicine."

Isaacs is starting a hematology/oncology fellowship in 3 weeks, and 1 year into her residency, she had to receive scores for obstetrics, surgery, and pediatrics, which had no bearing on her daily practice.

"I had to study for Step 3 while working 80-plus hours a week, and I was forced to use vacation days both to prepare for and to take this exam," she said. "There are no data validating Step 3 scores. They are not correlated with patient outcomes or clinical skills."

Karthik V. Sarma, MD, PhD, a delegate from California and a psychiatrist, who spoke on his own behalf, said he remembered taking Step 3 and being asked to diagnose a pathology slide. Wishing no disrespect for his pathology colleagues, he said, "I'm not sure my inability to diagnose that slide really says anything about my ability to be a physician."

And while Step 3 includes competencies that are important for physicians regardless of specialty, his numerical score is irrelevant to his qualification as a physician, Sarma added.

Kimberly Templeton, MD, a delegate who spoke on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, also opposed the amendment. Of note, she is a member of an orthopedic residency review committee for the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. (Templeton said her views do not reflect those of the council.)

"As both a program director [of the orthopedic residency review committee] and a state medical board member," with 20 years' and 12 years' experience in each role, respectively, she said, "we saw no advantage of having a specific exam score. All programs need to know, and all state medical boards are interested in is, did a resident pass the exam?"

However, it's impossible to convince residents that Step 3 scores do not matter. They continue to stress out over the exam, Templeton noted, urging the House not to pass the amendment striking the pass/fail provision and to pass the entire resolution for the sake of "residents' well-being."

Ultimately, the amendment was struck down with a vote of 117-476.

The final version of the policy resolution was adopted in a voice vote by the House. This included provisions recommending that Step 3 be made a pass/fail exam; called for a 1-day versus a 2-day exam; recommended medical students have the option to take the exam after passing Step 2 while still in school (as opposed to during their residency); and recommended the same changes be made for the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination Level 3.

Unmatched Physician Graduates

Following committee discussions over the weekend, an AMA reference committee recommended against adopting a policy calling on the AMA's Board of Trustees to study the role that unmatched physicians might play in patient care, as well as their potential to mitigate the physician shortage. The draft resolution also called for the AMA's Board to "provide recommendations on how to enroll these graduating physicians with a uniform title, privileges, geographic restrictions, and collaboration choices," and requested a report back to the House.

Edmond Cabbabe, MD, a delegate from Missouri representing the Heart of America Caucus, called for passage of a simplified resolution, asking the Board to study and report back on "how unmatched medical graduates can contribute to lessen the expected shortage of licensed physicians."

In 2014, Missouri passed a law allowing graduating physicians who did not match for residency to work under the title of "assistant physician" in underserved areas in primary care under the supervision of licensed physicians. Roughly 15 states have passed similar laws, he said.

"We want to see if unmatched physicians can play a role in taking care of the patients who need their services, in areas where they are needed. They are definitely more qualified than nurse practitioners and/or physician assistants to do that," Cabbabe argued.

Vicki Norton, MD, speaking on behalf of the Florida delegation, threw her delegation's support behind the proposed amendment.

Florida also recently passed a bill to create a year-long "graduate assistant physician" role, which only applies to U.S. medical graduates, is renewable for 1 year, and requires the individual to practice under a fully licensed physician, Norton explained.

"We view this as a very important pathway for physicians who have graduated from medical school ... under a tremendous amount of debt, to have a way to learn, to earn a living, and have some dignity while they try to rematch," she said.

Some medical school graduates who do not match wind up taking jobs as Uber drivers and Starbucks baristas, Norton added. "Is that what we want for [the] future of medicine?"

Andrew Rudawsky, MD, a delegate for the Ohio State Medical Association, speaking for the Great Lakes States Coalition, argued against the proposed draft policy.

"Our main argument in the scope-of-practice fight with PAs and NPs is that our graduate medical education sets us apart," he said. "And I think that if we create a subclass of physicians that don't have that, we lose a little bit in that argument. In scope of practice, I think our first, second, and third priority should be creating residency spots and ensuring that these physicians are able to complete their training."

After substantial discussion, the policy was ultimately referred to the Board of Trustees for further study.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/ama/110616

Postpartum Readmissions Up With High Blood Pressures Lingering From Pregnancy

 The myriad rehospitalizations required by women with ongoing hypertension in the postpartum period signaled a need to better manage these patients, researchers said.

Among people with new-onset hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (HDP), 81.8% had persistent hypertension postpartum after hospital discharge -- 14.1% severe hypertension -- based on one hospital system's remote blood pressure (BP) monitoring data.

Compared with peers whose BP normalized after discharge, those with severe hypertension postpartum were more likely to have hospital readmissions (adjusted OR 6.75, 95% CI 3.43-13.29) and emergency department visits (adjusted OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.17-2.92) within the first 6 weeks postpartum, reported a group led by Alisse Hauspurg, MD, MS, of University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in Pennsylvania.

Postdischarge BP trajectories were largely similar between those with inpatient BPs of 140-149/90-99 mmHg and ≥150/100 mmHg, the authors reported in JAMA Cardiologyopens in a new tab or window.

"Given new, compelling data supporting the importance of adequate BP control during the critical window of the immediate postpartum period for longer-term maternal health, our findings reinforce the critical role of remote BP monitoring in the postpartum period and suggest the need for further research to develop effective BP thresholds for antihypertensive medication initiation in the postpartum period," Hauspurg's group wrote.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (e.g., preeclampsia, eclampsia, gestational hypertension) complicate nearly 1 in 7 pregnanciesopens in a new tab or window per year, according to the CDC. Advanced maternal age, obesity, and diabetes are among the risk factors for these hypertensive disorders, which in turn can cause heart attacks and strokes in pregnant women.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) state BP measurements of ≥140/90 mmHg on at least two occasions as criteria for medication initiation, whereas the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) have a higher threshold of ≥150/100 mm Hg on two occasions.

The question is whether lower thresholds for antihypertensive medication initiation during the inpatient delivery hospitalization might help women in the immediate period after giving birth. The optimal threshold is not known given the lack of evidence from randomized trials in the postpartum period, study authors noted, adding that there are no guidelines for specific antihypertensive agents nor parameters for medication titration.

The present report showed that women with nonsevere persistent hypertension postpartum did not have significant links to hospital readmissions and emergency visits at the 6-week mark.

Study authors did strongly suggest remote BP monitoring, citing the POP-HT trialopens in a new tab or window in which a self-managed, physician-guided telemonitoring program lowered postpartum BP at 6-9 months following a hypertensive pregnancy.

How frequently BP monitoring postpartum should be done is unclear, however, commented JAMA Cardiology editor Sadiya Khan, MD, MSc, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, writing in an accompanying noteopens in a new tab or window.

At Hauspurg's institution, patients were enrolled in a remote BP monitoring and management program by their primary obstetric practitioner while inpatient on the postpartum unit. Each patient received an upper arm BP monitor, which they were trained on how to use so they could report BP measurements regularly via text messaging to a nurse-staffed call center. A physician reviewed measurements and initiated or titrated antihypertensive medications based on clinical judgement.

"Our findings highlight the need for improvement in postpartum BP management in individuals with new-onset HDP. Despite our robust postpartum hypertension management program, the majority of individuals in our cohort had ongoing hypertension after discharge from the delivery hospitalization," Hauspurg and colleagues wrote.

The present study arose as a part of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hospital System's quality improvement efforts and was a population-based sample of individuals with gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, eclampsia, or new-onset postpartum hypertension who delivered between September 2019 and June 2021. Postpartum individuals with prepregnancy chronic hypertension or who were enrolled during a postpartum readmission were excluded.

The study included 2,705 people (mean age 29.8 years), 18% identifying as Black and around 35% reporting use of public insurance at the delivery admission.

Postpartum, 53.9% were not treated with antihypertensive medications, while 23.5% were discharged with them and 22.6% had the medications initiated after hospital discharge (the latter at a median 7 days postpartum). Only 14.6% of those discharged with antihypertensive drugs achieved outpatient BP control postpartum.

"[T]he discordance between the ACC/AHA and ACOG criteria for targets representing optimal control of BP may be a major contributor to the observed heterogeneity in antihypertensive management strategies, and, subsequently, greater risk of readmission due to uncontrolled or severe hypertension," Khan commented.

Whether findings are generalizable to other centers and patients remains questionable, according to Hauspurg and colleagues. In addition, they cautioned that they had based the study on self-reported BPs.

Disclosures

The study was supported by grants from the NIH and the American Heart Association.

Hauspurg disclosed NIH grant support.

Khan reported grant funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Primary Source

JAMA Cardiology

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowHauspurg A, et al "Postpartum ambulatory blood pressure patterns following new-onset hypertensive disorders of pregnancy" JAMA Cardiol 2024; DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2024.1389.

Secondary Source

JAMA Cardiology

Source Reference: opens in a new tab or windowKhan SS "Postpartum remote blood pressure monitoring -- when control is of the essence" JAMA Cardiol 2024; DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2024.1386.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/cardiology/hypertension/110618