Study Overview

Objective. To assess the efficacy and safety of olaparib as an adjuvant treatment in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations who are at a high-risk for relapse.

Design. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase III study. The published results are from the prespecified interim analysis.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio to either receive 300 mg of olaparib orally twice daily or to receive a matching placebo. Randomization was stratified by hormone receptor status (estrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor positive/HER2-negative vs triple negative), prior neoadjuvant vs adjuvant chemotherapy, and prior platinum use for breast cancer. Treatment was continued for 52 weeks.

Setting and participants. A total of 1836 patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive olaparib or a placebo. Eligible patients had a germline BRCA1 or BRCA1 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Patients had high-risk, HER2-negative primary breast cancers and all had received definitive local therapy and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were enrolled between 2 to 12 weeks after completion of all local therapy. Platinum chemotherapy was allowed. Patients received adjuvant endocrine therapy for hormone receptor positive disease as well as adjuvant bisphosphonates per institutional guidelines. Patients with triple negative disease who received adjuvant chemotherapy were required to be lymph node positive or have at least 2 cm invasive disease. Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were required to have residual invasive disease to be eligible. For hormone receptor positive patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy to be eligible they had to have at least 4 pathologically confirmed lymph nodes involved. Hormone receptor positive patients who had neoadjuvant chemotherapy were required to have had residual invasive disease.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint for the study was invasive disease-free survival which was defined as time from randomization to date of recurrence or death from any cause. The secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), distant disease-free survival, safety, and tolerability of olaparib.

Main results. At the time of data cutoff, 284 events had occurred with a median follow-up of 2.5 years in the intention to treat population. A total of 81% of patients had triple negative breast cancer. Most patients (94% in the olaparib group and 92% in the placebo group) received both taxane and anthracycline based chemotherapy regimens. Platinum based chemotherapy was used in 26% of patients in each group. The groups were otherwise well balanced. Germline mutations in BRCA1 were present in 72% of patients and BRCA2 in 27% of patients. These were balanced between groups.

At the time of this analysis, adjuvant olaparib reduced the risk of invasive disease-free survival by 42% compared with placebo (P < .001). At 3 years, invasive disease-free survival was 85.9% in the olaparib group and 77.1% in the placebo group (difference, 8.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.5-13.0; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 99.5% CI, 0.41-0.82; P < .001). The 3-year distant disease-free survival was 87.5% in the olaparib group and 80.4% in the placebo group (HR 0.57; 99.5% CI, 0.39-0.83; P < .001). Results also showed that olaparib was associated with fewer deaths than placebo (59 and 86, respectively) (HR, 0.68; 99% CI, 0.44-1.05; P = .02); however, there was no significant difference between treatment arms at the time of this interim analysis. Subgroup analysis showed a consistent benefit across all groups with no difference noted regarding BRCA mutation, hormone receptor status or use of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant chemotherapy.

The side effects were consistent with the safety profile of olaparib. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher more common with olaparib included anemia (8.7%), leukopenia (3%), and fatigue (1.8%). Early discontinuation of trial regimen due to adverse events of disease recurrence occurred in 25.9% in the olaparib group and 20.7% in the placebo group. Blood transfusions were required in 5.8% of patients in the olaparib group. Myelodysplasia or acute myleoid leukemia was observed in 2 patients in the olaparib group and 3 patients in the placebo group. Adverse events leading to death occurred in 1 patient in the olaparib group and 2 patients in the placebo group.

Conclusion. Among patients with high-risk, HER2-negative early breast cancer and germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, adjuvant olaparib after completion of local treatment and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer invasive disease-free and distant disease-free survival compared with placebo.

Commentary

The results from the current OlympiA trial provide the first evidence that adjuvant therapy with poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors can improve outcomes in high-risk, HER2-negative breast cancer in patients with pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. The OS, while favoring olaparib, is not yet mature at the time of this analysis. Nevertheless, these results represent an important step forward in improving outcomes in this patient population. The efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitors in BRCA-mutated breast cancer has previously been shown in patients with advanced disease leading to FDA approval of both olaparib and talazoparib in this setting.^1,2 With the current results, PARP inhibitors will certainly play an important role in the adjuvant setting in patients with deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations at high risk for relapse. Importantly, the side effect profile appears acceptable with no unexpected events and a very low rate of secondary myeloid malignancies.

Subgroup analysis appears to indicate a benefit across all groups including hormone receptor–positive disease and triple negative breast cancer. Interestingly, approximately 25% of patients in both cohorts received platinum-based chemotherapy. The efficacy of adjuvant olaparib did not appear to be impacted by prior use of platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens. It is important to consider that postneoadjuvant capecitabine, per the results of the CREATE-X trial, in triple-negative patients was not permitted in the current study. Although, this has been widely adopted in clinical practice.³ The CREATE-X trial did not specify the benefit of adjuvant capecitabine in the BRCA-mutated cohort, thus, it is not clear how this subgroup fares with this approach. Thus, one cannot extrapolate the relative efficacy of olaparib compared with capecitabine, as pointed out by the authors, and whether we consider the use of capecitabine and/or olaparib in triple-negative patients with residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not clear at this time.

Nevertheless, the magnitude of benefit seen in this trial certainly provide clinically relevant and potentially practice changing results. It will be imperative to follow these results as the survival data matures and ensure no further long-term toxicity, particularly secondary myeloid malignancies, develop. These results should be discussed with each patient and informed decisions regarding the use of adjuvant olaparib should be considered for this patient population. Lastly, these results highlight the importance of germline testing for patients with breast cancer in accordance with national guideline recommendations. Moreover, these results certainly call into question whether it is time to consider expansion of our current germline testing guidelines to detect all potential patients who may benefit from this therapy.

Application for Clinical Practice

Adjuvant olaparib in high-risk patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations improves invasive and distant disease-free survival and should be considered in patients who meet the enrollment criteria of the current study. Furthermore, this highlights the importance of appropriate germline genetic testing in patients with breast cancer.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the efficacy and safety of olaparib as an adjuvant treatment in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations who are at a high-risk for relapse.

Design. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase III study. The published results are from the prespecified interim analysis.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio to either receive 300 mg of olaparib orally twice daily or to receive a matching placebo. Randomization was stratified by hormone receptor status (estrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor positive/HER2-negative vs triple negative), prior neoadjuvant vs adjuvant chemotherapy, and prior platinum use for breast cancer. Treatment was continued for 52 weeks.

Setting and participants. A total of 1836 patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive olaparib or a placebo. Eligible patients had a germline BRCA1 or BRCA1 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Patients had high-risk, HER2-negative primary breast cancers and all had received definitive local therapy and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were enrolled between 2 to 12 weeks after completion of all local therapy. Platinum chemotherapy was allowed. Patients received adjuvant endocrine therapy for hormone receptor positive disease as well as adjuvant bisphosphonates per institutional guidelines. Patients with triple negative disease who received adjuvant chemotherapy were required to be lymph node positive or have at least 2 cm invasive disease. Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were required to have residual invasive disease to be eligible. For hormone receptor positive patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy to be eligible they had to have at least 4 pathologically confirmed lymph nodes involved. Hormone receptor positive patients who had neoadjuvant chemotherapy were required to have had residual invasive disease.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint for the study was invasive disease-free survival which was defined as time from randomization to date of recurrence or death from any cause. The secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), distant disease-free survival, safety, and tolerability of olaparib.

Main results. At the time of data cutoff, 284 events had occurred with a median follow-up of 2.5 years in the intention to treat population. A total of 81% of patients had triple negative breast cancer. Most patients (94% in the olaparib group and 92% in the placebo group) received both taxane and anthracycline based chemotherapy regimens. Platinum based chemotherapy was used in 26% of patients in each group. The groups were otherwise well balanced. Germline mutations in BRCA1 were present in 72% of patients and BRCA2 in 27% of patients. These were balanced between groups.

At the time of this analysis, adjuvant olaparib reduced the risk of invasive disease-free survival by 42% compared with placebo (P < .001). At 3 years, invasive disease-free survival was 85.9% in the olaparib group and 77.1% in the placebo group (difference, 8.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.5-13.0; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 99.5% CI, 0.41-0.82; P < .001). The 3-year distant disease-free survival was 87.5% in the olaparib group and 80.4% in the placebo group (HR 0.57; 99.5% CI, 0.39-0.83; P < .001). Results also showed that olaparib was associated with fewer deaths than placebo (59 and 86, respectively) (HR, 0.68; 99% CI, 0.44-1.05; P = .02); however, there was no significant difference between treatment arms at the time of this interim analysis. Subgroup analysis showed a consistent benefit across all groups with no difference noted regarding BRCA mutation, hormone receptor status or use of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant chemotherapy.

The side effects were consistent with the safety profile of olaparib. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher more common with olaparib included anemia (8.7%), leukopenia (3%), and fatigue (1.8%). Early discontinuation of trial regimen due to adverse events of disease recurrence occurred in 25.9% in the olaparib group and 20.7% in the placebo group. Blood transfusions were required in 5.8% of patients in the olaparib group. Myelodysplasia or acute myleoid leukemia was observed in 2 patients in the olaparib group and 3 patients in the placebo group. Adverse events leading to death occurred in 1 patient in the olaparib group and 2 patients in the placebo group.

Conclusion. Among patients with high-risk, HER2-negative early breast cancer and germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, adjuvant olaparib after completion of local treatment and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer invasive disease-free and distant disease-free survival compared with placebo.

Commentary

The results from the current OlympiA trial provide the first evidence that adjuvant therapy with poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors can improve outcomes in high-risk, HER2-negative breast cancer in patients with pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. The OS, while favoring olaparib, is not yet mature at the time of this analysis. Nevertheless, these results represent an important step forward in improving outcomes in this patient population. The efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitors in BRCA-mutated breast cancer has previously been shown in patients with advanced disease leading to FDA approval of both olaparib and talazoparib in this setting.^1,2 With the current results, PARP inhibitors will certainly play an important role in the adjuvant setting in patients with deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations at high risk for relapse. Importantly, the side effect profile appears acceptable with no unexpected events and a very low rate of secondary myeloid malignancies.

Subgroup analysis appears to indicate a benefit across all groups including hormone receptor–positive disease and triple negative breast cancer. Interestingly, approximately 25% of patients in both cohorts received platinum-based chemotherapy. The efficacy of adjuvant olaparib did not appear to be impacted by prior use of platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens. It is important to consider that postneoadjuvant capecitabine, per the results of the CREATE-X trial, in triple-negative patients was not permitted in the current study. Although, this has been widely adopted in clinical practice.³ The CREATE-X trial did not specify the benefit of adjuvant capecitabine in the BRCA-mutated cohort, thus, it is not clear how this subgroup fares with this approach. Thus, one cannot extrapolate the relative efficacy of olaparib compared with capecitabine, as pointed out by the authors, and whether we consider the use of capecitabine and/or olaparib in triple-negative patients with residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not clear at this time.

Nevertheless, the magnitude of benefit seen in this trial certainly provide clinically relevant and potentially practice changing results. It will be imperative to follow these results as the survival data matures and ensure no further long-term toxicity, particularly secondary myeloid malignancies, develop. These results should be discussed with each patient and informed decisions regarding the use of adjuvant olaparib should be considered for this patient population. Lastly, these results highlight the importance of germline testing for patients with breast cancer in accordance with national guideline recommendations. Moreover, these results certainly call into question whether it is time to consider expansion of our current germline testing guidelines to detect all potential patients who may benefit from this therapy.

Application for Clinical Practice

Adjuvant olaparib in high-risk patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations improves invasive and distant disease-free survival and should be considered in patients who meet the enrollment criteria of the current study. Furthermore, this highlights the importance of appropriate germline genetic testing in patients with breast cancer.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. To assess the efficacy and safety of olaparib as an adjuvant treatment in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations who are at a high-risk for relapse.

Design. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase III study. The published results are from the prespecified interim analysis.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio to either receive 300 mg of olaparib orally twice daily or to receive a matching placebo. Randomization was stratified by hormone receptor status (estrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor positive/HER2-negative vs triple negative), prior neoadjuvant vs adjuvant chemotherapy, and prior platinum use for breast cancer. Treatment was continued for 52 weeks.

Setting and participants. A total of 1836 patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive olaparib or a placebo. Eligible patients had a germline BRCA1 or BRCA1 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Patients had high-risk, HER2-negative primary breast cancers and all had received definitive local therapy and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were enrolled between 2 to 12 weeks after completion of all local therapy. Platinum chemotherapy was allowed. Patients received adjuvant endocrine therapy for hormone receptor positive disease as well as adjuvant bisphosphonates per institutional guidelines. Patients with triple negative disease who received adjuvant chemotherapy were required to be lymph node positive or have at least 2 cm invasive disease. Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were required to have residual invasive disease to be eligible. For hormone receptor positive patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy to be eligible they had to have at least 4 pathologically confirmed lymph nodes involved. Hormone receptor positive patients who had neoadjuvant chemotherapy were required to have had residual invasive disease.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint for the study was invasive disease-free survival which was defined as time from randomization to date of recurrence or death from any cause. The secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), distant disease-free survival, safety, and tolerability of olaparib.

Main results. At the time of data cutoff, 284 events had occurred with a median follow-up of 2.5 years in the intention to treat population. A total of 81% of patients had triple negative breast cancer. Most patients (94% in the olaparib group and 92% in the placebo group) received both taxane and anthracycline based chemotherapy regimens. Platinum based chemotherapy was used in 26% of patients in each group. The groups were otherwise well balanced. Germline mutations in BRCA1 were present in 72% of patients and BRCA2 in 27% of patients. These were balanced between groups.

At the time of this analysis, adjuvant olaparib reduced the risk of invasive disease-free survival by 42% compared with placebo (P < .001). At 3 years, invasive disease-free survival was 85.9% in the olaparib group and 77.1% in the placebo group (difference, 8.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.5-13.0; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 99.5% CI, 0.41-0.82; P < .001). The 3-year distant disease-free survival was 87.5% in the olaparib group and 80.4% in the placebo group (HR 0.57; 99.5% CI, 0.39-0.83; P < .001). Results also showed that olaparib was associated with fewer deaths than placebo (59 and 86, respectively) (HR, 0.68; 99% CI, 0.44-1.05; P = .02); however, there was no significant difference between treatment arms at the time of this interim analysis. Subgroup analysis showed a consistent benefit across all groups with no difference noted regarding BRCA mutation, hormone receptor status or use of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant chemotherapy.

The side effects were consistent with the safety profile of olaparib. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher more common with olaparib included anemia (8.7%), leukopenia (3%), and fatigue (1.8%). Early discontinuation of trial regimen due to adverse events of disease recurrence occurred in 25.9% in the olaparib group and 20.7% in the placebo group. Blood transfusions were required in 5.8% of patients in the olaparib group. Myelodysplasia or acute myleoid leukemia was observed in 2 patients in the olaparib group and 3 patients in the placebo group. Adverse events leading to death occurred in 1 patient in the olaparib group and 2 patients in the placebo group.

Conclusion. Among patients with high-risk, HER2-negative early breast cancer and germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, adjuvant olaparib after completion of local treatment and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer invasive disease-free and distant disease-free survival compared with placebo.

Commentary

The results from the current OlympiA trial provide the first evidence that adjuvant therapy with poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors can improve outcomes in high-risk, HER2-negative breast cancer in patients with pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. The OS, while favoring olaparib, is not yet mature at the time of this analysis. Nevertheless, these results represent an important step forward in improving outcomes in this patient population. The efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitors in BRCA-mutated breast cancer has previously been shown in patients with advanced disease leading to FDA approval of both olaparib and talazoparib in this setting.^1,2 With the current results, PARP inhibitors will certainly play an important role in the adjuvant setting in patients with deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations at high risk for relapse. Importantly, the side effect profile appears acceptable with no unexpected events and a very low rate of secondary myeloid malignancies.

Subgroup analysis appears to indicate a benefit across all groups including hormone receptor–positive disease and triple negative breast cancer. Interestingly, approximately 25% of patients in both cohorts received platinum-based chemotherapy. The efficacy of adjuvant olaparib did not appear to be impacted by prior use of platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens. It is important to consider that postneoadjuvant capecitabine, per the results of the CREATE-X trial, in triple-negative patients was not permitted in the current study. Although, this has been widely adopted in clinical practice.³ The CREATE-X trial did not specify the benefit of adjuvant capecitabine in the BRCA-mutated cohort, thus, it is not clear how this subgroup fares with this approach. Thus, one cannot extrapolate the relative efficacy of olaparib compared with capecitabine, as pointed out by the authors, and whether we consider the use of capecitabine and/or olaparib in triple-negative patients with residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not clear at this time.

Nevertheless, the magnitude of benefit seen in this trial certainly provide clinically relevant and potentially practice changing results. It will be imperative to follow these results as the survival data matures and ensure no further long-term toxicity, particularly secondary myeloid malignancies, develop. These results should be discussed with each patient and informed decisions regarding the use of adjuvant olaparib should be considered for this patient population. Lastly, these results highlight the importance of germline testing for patients with breast cancer in accordance with national guideline recommendations. Moreover, these results certainly call into question whether it is time to consider expansion of our current germline testing guidelines to detect all potential patients who may benefit from this therapy.

Application for Clinical Practice

Adjuvant olaparib in high-risk patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations improves invasive and distant disease-free survival and should be considered in patients who meet the enrollment criteria of the current study. Furthermore, this highlights the importance of appropriate germline genetic testing in patients with breast cancer.

Financial disclosures: None.

Because hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is typically asymptomatic, its presence can easily be overlooked without appropriate screening efforts. For those screening efforts to be effective, they must keep pace with the changing demographic face of this increasingly prevalent but treatable disease.

Perhaps the most dramatic shift in HCV demographics in recent years has been the increase of infections among those born after 1965, a trend primarily driven by the opioid epidemic. In addition, data from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System show that cases of diagnosed HCV doubled among women of childbearing age from 2006 to 2014, with new infections in younger women surpassing those in older age groups.

With such trends in mind, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention broadened their recommendations regarding HCV in 2020 to include one-time testing in all adults aged 18 years and older and screening of all pregnant women during each pregnancy, except where the prevalence of infection is less than 0.1%, a threshold that no state has yet achieved.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) subsequently followed suit in their own recommendations.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases/Infectious Diseases Society of America have long advocated for extensive expansion in their screening recommendations for HCV, including pregnancy.

Although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine did not immediately adopt these recommendations, they have since endorsed them in May 2021 and June 2021, respectively.
 

The hepatologist perspective

As a practicing hepatologist, this seems like an uncontroversial recommendation. Obstetricians already screen for hepatitis B virus in each pregnancy. It should be easy to add HCV testing to the same lab testing.

Risk-based screening has repeatedly been demonstrated to be ineffective. It should be easier to test all women than to ask prying questions about high-risk behaviors.

Given the increase of injection drug use and resultant HCV infections in women of childbearing age, this seems like a perfect opportunity to identify chronically infected women and counsel them on transmission and cure. And pregnancy is also unique in that it is a time of near-universal health coverage.

Let’s address some of the operational issues.

The diagnostic cascade for HCV can be made very easy. HCV antibody testing is our standard screening test and, when positive, can automatically reflex to HCV polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the diagnostic test. Thus, with one blood sample, you can both screen for and diagnose infection.

Current guidelines do not recommend treating HCV during pregnancy, although therapy can be considered on an individual basis. Linkage to a knowledgeable provider who can discuss transmission and treatment, as well as assess the stage of liver injury, should decrease the burden on the ob.gyn.

The impact on pregnancy is marginal. HCV should not change either the mode of delivery or the decision to breastfeed. The AASLD/IDSA guidance outlines only four recommendations for monitoring during pregnancy:

• Obtain HCV RNA to see whether the infection is active and assess liver function at initiation of prenatal care.
• Prenatal care should be tailored to the pregnancy. There is no modification recommended to decrease mother-to-child transmission (MTCT).
• Be aware that intrahepatic is more common with HCV.
• Women with have a higher rate of adverse outcomes and should be linked to a high-risk obstetrics specialist.

But of course, what seems easy to one specialist may not be true of another. With that in mind, let’s hear the ob.gyn. perspective on these updated screening recommendations.
 

The ob.gyn. perspective

Recent guidelines from the CDC, ACOG, and SMFM recommend universal screening for HCV in all pregnant women. The increased availability of highly effective antiviral regimens makes universal screening a logical strategy, especially to identify candidates for this curative treatment. What is questionable, however, is the recommended timing by which this screening should take place.

HCV screening during pregnancy, as currently recommended, provides no immediate benefit for the pregnant woman or the fetus/neonate, given that antiviral treatments have not been approved during gestation, and there are no known measures that decrease MTCT or change routine perinatal care.

We also must not forget that a significant proportion of women in the United States, particularly those with limited resources, do not receive prenatal care at all. Most of them, however, will present to a hospital for delivery. Consequently, compliance with screening might be higher if performed at the time of delivery rather than antepartum.

Deferring screening until the intrapartum or immediate postpartum period, at least until antiviral treatment during pregnancy becomes a reality, was discussed. The rationale was that this approach might obviate the need to deal with the unintended consequences and burden of testing for HCV during pregnancy. Ultimately, ACOG and SMFM fell in line with the CDC recommendations.

Despite the lack of robust evidence regarding the risk for MTCT associated with commonly performed obstetric procedures (for example, genetic amniocentesis, artificial rupture of the membranes during labor, placement of an intrauterine pressure catheter), clinicians may be reluctant to perform them in HCV-infected women, resulting in potential deviations from the obstetric standard of care.

Similarly, it is likely that patients may choose to have a cesarean delivery for the sole purpose of decreasing MTCT, despite the lack of evidence for this. Such ill-advised patient-driven decisions are increasingly likely in the current environment, where social media can rapidly disseminate misinformation.
 

Implications for pediatric patients

One cannot isolate HCV screening in pregnancy from the consequences that may potentially occur as part of the infant’s transition to the care of a pediatrician.

Even though MTCT is estimated to occur in just 5%-15% of cases, all children born to HCV viremic mothers should be screened for HCV.

Traditionally, screening for HCV antibodies occurred after 18 months of age. In those who test positive, HCV PCR testing is recommended at 3 years. However, this algorithm is being called into question because only approximately one-third of infants are successfully screened.

HCV RNA testing in the first year after birth has been suggested. However, even proponents of this approach concur that all management decisions should be deferred until after the age of 3 years, when medications are approved for pediatric use.

In addition, HCV testing would be required again before considering therapy because children have higher rates of spontaneous clearance.
 

Seeking consensus beyond the controversy

Controversy remains surrounding the most recent update to the HCV screening guidelines. The current recommendation to screen during pregnancy cannot modify the risk for MTCT, has no impact on decisions regarding mode of delivery or breastfeeding, and could potentially cause harm by making obstetricians defer necessary invasive procedures even though there are no data linking them to an increase in MTCT.

Yet after extensive debate, the CDC, USPSTF, AASLD/IDSA, ACOG, and SMFM all developed their current recommendations to initiate HCV screening during pregnancy. To make this successful, screening algorithms need to be simple and consistent across all society recommendations.

HCV antibody testing should always reflex to the diagnostic test (HCV PCR) to allow confirmation in those who test positive without requiring an additional blood test. Viremic mothers (those who are HCV positive on PCR) should be linked to a provider who can discuss prognosis, transmission, and treatment. The importance of screening the infant also must be communicated to the parents and pediatrician alike.

Dr. Reau has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix; received research grants from AbbVie and Gilead; and received income from AASLD. Dr. Pacheco disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Because hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is typically asymptomatic, its presence can easily be overlooked without appropriate screening efforts. For those screening efforts to be effective, they must keep pace with the changing demographic face of this increasingly prevalent but treatable disease.

Perhaps the most dramatic shift in HCV demographics in recent years has been the increase of infections among those born after 1965, a trend primarily driven by the opioid epidemic. In addition, data from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System show that cases of diagnosed HCV doubled among women of childbearing age from 2006 to 2014, with new infections in younger women surpassing those in older age groups.

With such trends in mind, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention broadened their recommendations regarding HCV in 2020 to include one-time testing in all adults aged 18 years and older and screening of all pregnant women during each pregnancy, except where the prevalence of infection is less than 0.1%, a threshold that no state has yet achieved.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) subsequently followed suit in their own recommendations.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases/Infectious Diseases Society of America have long advocated for extensive expansion in their screening recommendations for HCV, including pregnancy.

Although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine did not immediately adopt these recommendations, they have since endorsed them in May 2021 and June 2021, respectively.
 

The hepatologist perspective

As a practicing hepatologist, this seems like an uncontroversial recommendation. Obstetricians already screen for hepatitis B virus in each pregnancy. It should be easy to add HCV testing to the same lab testing.

Risk-based screening has repeatedly been demonstrated to be ineffective. It should be easier to test all women than to ask prying questions about high-risk behaviors.

Given the increase of injection drug use and resultant HCV infections in women of childbearing age, this seems like a perfect opportunity to identify chronically infected women and counsel them on transmission and cure. And pregnancy is also unique in that it is a time of near-universal health coverage.

Let’s address some of the operational issues.

The diagnostic cascade for HCV can be made very easy. HCV antibody testing is our standard screening test and, when positive, can automatically reflex to HCV polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the diagnostic test. Thus, with one blood sample, you can both screen for and diagnose infection.

Current guidelines do not recommend treating HCV during pregnancy, although therapy can be considered on an individual basis. Linkage to a knowledgeable provider who can discuss transmission and treatment, as well as assess the stage of liver injury, should decrease the burden on the ob.gyn.

The impact on pregnancy is marginal. HCV should not change either the mode of delivery or the decision to breastfeed. The AASLD/IDSA guidance outlines only four recommendations for monitoring during pregnancy:

• Obtain HCV RNA to see whether the infection is active and assess liver function at initiation of prenatal care.
• Prenatal care should be tailored to the pregnancy. There is no modification recommended to decrease mother-to-child transmission (MTCT).
• Be aware that intrahepatic is more common with HCV.
• Women with have a higher rate of adverse outcomes and should be linked to a high-risk obstetrics specialist.

But of course, what seems easy to one specialist may not be true of another. With that in mind, let’s hear the ob.gyn. perspective on these updated screening recommendations.
 

The ob.gyn. perspective

Recent guidelines from the CDC, ACOG, and SMFM recommend universal screening for HCV in all pregnant women. The increased availability of highly effective antiviral regimens makes universal screening a logical strategy, especially to identify candidates for this curative treatment. What is questionable, however, is the recommended timing by which this screening should take place.

HCV screening during pregnancy, as currently recommended, provides no immediate benefit for the pregnant woman or the fetus/neonate, given that antiviral treatments have not been approved during gestation, and there are no known measures that decrease MTCT or change routine perinatal care.

We also must not forget that a significant proportion of women in the United States, particularly those with limited resources, do not receive prenatal care at all. Most of them, however, will present to a hospital for delivery. Consequently, compliance with screening might be higher if performed at the time of delivery rather than antepartum.

Deferring screening until the intrapartum or immediate postpartum period, at least until antiviral treatment during pregnancy becomes a reality, was discussed. The rationale was that this approach might obviate the need to deal with the unintended consequences and burden of testing for HCV during pregnancy. Ultimately, ACOG and SMFM fell in line with the CDC recommendations.

Despite the lack of robust evidence regarding the risk for MTCT associated with commonly performed obstetric procedures (for example, genetic amniocentesis, artificial rupture of the membranes during labor, placement of an intrauterine pressure catheter), clinicians may be reluctant to perform them in HCV-infected women, resulting in potential deviations from the obstetric standard of care.

Similarly, it is likely that patients may choose to have a cesarean delivery for the sole purpose of decreasing MTCT, despite the lack of evidence for this. Such ill-advised patient-driven decisions are increasingly likely in the current environment, where social media can rapidly disseminate misinformation.
 

Implications for pediatric patients

One cannot isolate HCV screening in pregnancy from the consequences that may potentially occur as part of the infant’s transition to the care of a pediatrician.

Even though MTCT is estimated to occur in just 5%-15% of cases, all children born to HCV viremic mothers should be screened for HCV.

Traditionally, screening for HCV antibodies occurred after 18 months of age. In those who test positive, HCV PCR testing is recommended at 3 years. However, this algorithm is being called into question because only approximately one-third of infants are successfully screened.

HCV RNA testing in the first year after birth has been suggested. However, even proponents of this approach concur that all management decisions should be deferred until after the age of 3 years, when medications are approved for pediatric use.

In addition, HCV testing would be required again before considering therapy because children have higher rates of spontaneous clearance.
 

Seeking consensus beyond the controversy

Controversy remains surrounding the most recent update to the HCV screening guidelines. The current recommendation to screen during pregnancy cannot modify the risk for MTCT, has no impact on decisions regarding mode of delivery or breastfeeding, and could potentially cause harm by making obstetricians defer necessary invasive procedures even though there are no data linking them to an increase in MTCT.

Yet after extensive debate, the CDC, USPSTF, AASLD/IDSA, ACOG, and SMFM all developed their current recommendations to initiate HCV screening during pregnancy. To make this successful, screening algorithms need to be simple and consistent across all society recommendations.

HCV antibody testing should always reflex to the diagnostic test (HCV PCR) to allow confirmation in those who test positive without requiring an additional blood test. Viremic mothers (those who are HCV positive on PCR) should be linked to a provider who can discuss prognosis, transmission, and treatment. The importance of screening the infant also must be communicated to the parents and pediatrician alike.

Dr. Reau has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix; received research grants from AbbVie and Gilead; and received income from AASLD. Dr. Pacheco disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Because hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is typically asymptomatic, its presence can easily be overlooked without appropriate screening efforts. For those screening efforts to be effective, they must keep pace with the changing demographic face of this increasingly prevalent but treatable disease.

Perhaps the most dramatic shift in HCV demographics in recent years has been the increase of infections among those born after 1965, a trend primarily driven by the opioid epidemic. In addition, data from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System show that cases of diagnosed HCV doubled among women of childbearing age from 2006 to 2014, with new infections in younger women surpassing those in older age groups.

With such trends in mind, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention broadened their recommendations regarding HCV in 2020 to include one-time testing in all adults aged 18 years and older and screening of all pregnant women during each pregnancy, except where the prevalence of infection is less than 0.1%, a threshold that no state has yet achieved.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) subsequently followed suit in their own recommendations.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases/Infectious Diseases Society of America have long advocated for extensive expansion in their screening recommendations for HCV, including pregnancy.

Although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine did not immediately adopt these recommendations, they have since endorsed them in May 2021 and June 2021, respectively.
 

The hepatologist perspective

As a practicing hepatologist, this seems like an uncontroversial recommendation. Obstetricians already screen for hepatitis B virus in each pregnancy. It should be easy to add HCV testing to the same lab testing.

Risk-based screening has repeatedly been demonstrated to be ineffective. It should be easier to test all women than to ask prying questions about high-risk behaviors.

Given the increase of injection drug use and resultant HCV infections in women of childbearing age, this seems like a perfect opportunity to identify chronically infected women and counsel them on transmission and cure. And pregnancy is also unique in that it is a time of near-universal health coverage.

Let’s address some of the operational issues.

The diagnostic cascade for HCV can be made very easy. HCV antibody testing is our standard screening test and, when positive, can automatically reflex to HCV polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the diagnostic test. Thus, with one blood sample, you can both screen for and diagnose infection.

Current guidelines do not recommend treating HCV during pregnancy, although therapy can be considered on an individual basis. Linkage to a knowledgeable provider who can discuss transmission and treatment, as well as assess the stage of liver injury, should decrease the burden on the ob.gyn.

The impact on pregnancy is marginal. HCV should not change either the mode of delivery or the decision to breastfeed. The AASLD/IDSA guidance outlines only four recommendations for monitoring during pregnancy:

• Obtain HCV RNA to see whether the infection is active and assess liver function at initiation of prenatal care.
• Prenatal care should be tailored to the pregnancy. There is no modification recommended to decrease mother-to-child transmission (MTCT).
• Be aware that intrahepatic is more common with HCV.
• Women with have a higher rate of adverse outcomes and should be linked to a high-risk obstetrics specialist.

But of course, what seems easy to one specialist may not be true of another. With that in mind, let’s hear the ob.gyn. perspective on these updated screening recommendations.
 

The ob.gyn. perspective

Recent guidelines from the CDC, ACOG, and SMFM recommend universal screening for HCV in all pregnant women. The increased availability of highly effective antiviral regimens makes universal screening a logical strategy, especially to identify candidates for this curative treatment. What is questionable, however, is the recommended timing by which this screening should take place.

HCV screening during pregnancy, as currently recommended, provides no immediate benefit for the pregnant woman or the fetus/neonate, given that antiviral treatments have not been approved during gestation, and there are no known measures that decrease MTCT or change routine perinatal care.

We also must not forget that a significant proportion of women in the United States, particularly those with limited resources, do not receive prenatal care at all. Most of them, however, will present to a hospital for delivery. Consequently, compliance with screening might be higher if performed at the time of delivery rather than antepartum.

Deferring screening until the intrapartum or immediate postpartum period, at least until antiviral treatment during pregnancy becomes a reality, was discussed. The rationale was that this approach might obviate the need to deal with the unintended consequences and burden of testing for HCV during pregnancy. Ultimately, ACOG and SMFM fell in line with the CDC recommendations.

Despite the lack of robust evidence regarding the risk for MTCT associated with commonly performed obstetric procedures (for example, genetic amniocentesis, artificial rupture of the membranes during labor, placement of an intrauterine pressure catheter), clinicians may be reluctant to perform them in HCV-infected women, resulting in potential deviations from the obstetric standard of care.

Similarly, it is likely that patients may choose to have a cesarean delivery for the sole purpose of decreasing MTCT, despite the lack of evidence for this. Such ill-advised patient-driven decisions are increasingly likely in the current environment, where social media can rapidly disseminate misinformation.
 

Implications for pediatric patients

One cannot isolate HCV screening in pregnancy from the consequences that may potentially occur as part of the infant’s transition to the care of a pediatrician.

Even though MTCT is estimated to occur in just 5%-15% of cases, all children born to HCV viremic mothers should be screened for HCV.

Traditionally, screening for HCV antibodies occurred after 18 months of age. In those who test positive, HCV PCR testing is recommended at 3 years. However, this algorithm is being called into question because only approximately one-third of infants are successfully screened.

HCV RNA testing in the first year after birth has been suggested. However, even proponents of this approach concur that all management decisions should be deferred until after the age of 3 years, when medications are approved for pediatric use.

In addition, HCV testing would be required again before considering therapy because children have higher rates of spontaneous clearance.
 

Seeking consensus beyond the controversy

Controversy remains surrounding the most recent update to the HCV screening guidelines. The current recommendation to screen during pregnancy cannot modify the risk for MTCT, has no impact on decisions regarding mode of delivery or breastfeeding, and could potentially cause harm by making obstetricians defer necessary invasive procedures even though there are no data linking them to an increase in MTCT.

Yet after extensive debate, the CDC, USPSTF, AASLD/IDSA, ACOG, and SMFM all developed their current recommendations to initiate HCV screening during pregnancy. To make this successful, screening algorithms need to be simple and consistent across all society recommendations.

HCV antibody testing should always reflex to the diagnostic test (HCV PCR) to allow confirmation in those who test positive without requiring an additional blood test. Viremic mothers (those who are HCV positive on PCR) should be linked to a provider who can discuss prognosis, transmission, and treatment. The importance of screening the infant also must be communicated to the parents and pediatrician alike.

Dr. Reau has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix; received research grants from AbbVie and Gilead; and received income from AASLD. Dr. Pacheco disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the clinical experience of Emmy Graber, MD, MBA, rosacea is in the eye of the beholder.

“It’s not really up to us as the providers as to what’s important to the patient or how bad their rosacea is,” she said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “It really is up to the patient,” added Dr. Graber, president of The Dermatology Institute of Boston, who recommends asking patients about how severe they consider their rosacea to be, and what about rosacea bothers them most. Their responses may be surprising.

A study published in 2017 showed that complete resolution of even mild rosacea prolongs remission of rosacea, and most importantly, improves the quality of life for patients. “So, don’t discount what you consider to be mild rosacea in patients,” she said.

Skin care recommendations

“And don’t forget about basic skin care,” she advised. A recently published Chinese study of 999 rosacea patients and 1,010 controls with healthy skin found that a high frequency of cleansing and expansive use of cleansers were positively correlated with rosacea occurrence, suggesting that overcleansing can be a risk factor for rosacea. “Ask your patient, ‘how often are you cleaning your face?’ ” Dr. Graber suggested. “You might find that they’re overdoing it by washing three or four times a day. Several studies have shown that basic skin care alone improves rosacea.”

Skin care recommendations for patients with rosacea include avoiding chemical or physical exfoliants and alcohol-based topical products, and moisturizing and washing their faces with mild, synthetic detergent-based products rather than traditional soaps, which may further alkalinize and irritate the skin. “Patients should also be counseled to use physical-based sunscreens rather than chemical-based sunscreens,” she said.
 

Treating erythema

For treating erythema with topicals, a systematic review published in 2019 found the most evidence for brimonidine 0.33% gel, an alpha2-adrenergic agonist, and oxymetazoline 1% cream, an alpha1-adrenergic agonist. “Both of these products functionally constrict facial blood vessels,” and are Food and Drug Administration approved for treating persistent erythema, Dr. Graber said. “These products improve erythema within 3 hours of and up to 12 hours after application and overall, they are well tolerated.”

Rosacea.org

Based on clinical trial results, about 15% of patients on brimonidine report adverse reactions such as dermatitis, burning, pruritus, and erythema, compared with 8% of patients on oxymetazoline. At the same time, up to 20% of individuals on brimonidine report rebound erythema, compared with fewer than 1% of those using oxymetazoline. Laser and light therapies such as pulse-dye lasers, potassium-titanyl-phosphate lasers, and intense-pulse light devices are also effective in treating persistent erythema but are less effective for transient flushing.
 

Treatment of papules and pustules

For treating papules and pustules, the 2019 systemic review also found high-certainty evidence for using azelaic acid and topical ivermectin, and moderate-certainty evidence for using topical metronidazole and topical minocycline. “Topical ivermectin was demonstrated to be the most effective topical treatment for papulopustular rosacea and to provide the greatest psychological benefit to these patients,” Dr. Graber said.

In a double-blind, multicenter 15-week trial comparing azelaic acid 15% gel with metronidazole 0.75% gel in patients with papulopustular rosacea, both agents were found to be effective. But those treated with azelaic acid 15% gel had a greater reduction in lesion counts and erythema, and improvement in global assessments, compared with metronidazole 0.75% gel. However, the azelaic acid 15% gel was associated with more stinging compared with metronidazole 0.75% gel, although it was usually transient.

Another study, a double-blind, single-center, 15-week trial, compared the efficacy of azelaic acid 20% cream with metronidazole 0.75% cream. Both agents were found to be effective and had similar levels of reductions in papules and pustules. However, patients in the azelaic acid 20% cream arm had significantly higher physician ratings of global improvement, as well as overall higher patient satisfaction.

More recently, a phase 3 study of 962 patients found that ivermectin 1% cream once daily improved quality of life slightly more than metronidazole 0.75% cream twice daily. No difference in adverse events were noted between the two agents.

Other options for treating papules and pustules include topical minocycline 1.5% foam, which is FDA approved for rosacea, as well as second-line agents topical sodium sulfacetamide with sulfur cleanser (cream or lotion), and permethrin, Dr. Graber said.

As for treating papules and pustules with oral agents, the strongest evidence favors oral tetracyclines and isotretinoin, she noted.

Doxycycline, minocycline, tetracycline, and sarecycline can be used as monotherapy or coadministered with topical agents. “The addition of topical agents may also help to shorten the duration of antibiotic use, which is very important,” Dr. Graber said.

She noted that oral beta-blockers might be useful to treat persistent erythema and flushing because they antagonize the effects of sympathetic nerve stimulation and circulating catecholamines at b-adrenoceptors. Carvedilol and propranolol have been the most studied. The most common potential side effects are hypotension and bradycardia.

Dr. Graber disclosed that she is a consultant/adviser for Digital Diagnostics, Almirall, Hovione, Keratin Biosciences, La Roche Posay, Ortho Dermatologics, Sebacia, Sol-Gel, Verrica, and WebMD. She is also a research investigator for Hovione, Ortho Dermatologics, Sebacia, and she receives royalties from Wolters Kluwer Health.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

In the clinical experience of Emmy Graber, MD, MBA, rosacea is in the eye of the beholder.

“It’s not really up to us as the providers as to what’s important to the patient or how bad their rosacea is,” she said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “It really is up to the patient,” added Dr. Graber, president of The Dermatology Institute of Boston, who recommends asking patients about how severe they consider their rosacea to be, and what about rosacea bothers them most. Their responses may be surprising.

A study published in 2017 showed that complete resolution of even mild rosacea prolongs remission of rosacea, and most importantly, improves the quality of life for patients. “So, don’t discount what you consider to be mild rosacea in patients,” she said.

Skin care recommendations

“And don’t forget about basic skin care,” she advised. A recently published Chinese study of 999 rosacea patients and 1,010 controls with healthy skin found that a high frequency of cleansing and expansive use of cleansers were positively correlated with rosacea occurrence, suggesting that overcleansing can be a risk factor for rosacea. “Ask your patient, ‘how often are you cleaning your face?’ ” Dr. Graber suggested. “You might find that they’re overdoing it by washing three or four times a day. Several studies have shown that basic skin care alone improves rosacea.”

Skin care recommendations for patients with rosacea include avoiding chemical or physical exfoliants and alcohol-based topical products, and moisturizing and washing their faces with mild, synthetic detergent-based products rather than traditional soaps, which may further alkalinize and irritate the skin. “Patients should also be counseled to use physical-based sunscreens rather than chemical-based sunscreens,” she said.
 

Treating erythema

For treating erythema with topicals, a systematic review published in 2019 found the most evidence for brimonidine 0.33% gel, an alpha2-adrenergic agonist, and oxymetazoline 1% cream, an alpha1-adrenergic agonist. “Both of these products functionally constrict facial blood vessels,” and are Food and Drug Administration approved for treating persistent erythema, Dr. Graber said. “These products improve erythema within 3 hours of and up to 12 hours after application and overall, they are well tolerated.”

Rosacea.org

Based on clinical trial results, about 15% of patients on brimonidine report adverse reactions such as dermatitis, burning, pruritus, and erythema, compared with 8% of patients on oxymetazoline. At the same time, up to 20% of individuals on brimonidine report rebound erythema, compared with fewer than 1% of those using oxymetazoline. Laser and light therapies such as pulse-dye lasers, potassium-titanyl-phosphate lasers, and intense-pulse light devices are also effective in treating persistent erythema but are less effective for transient flushing.
 

Treatment of papules and pustules

For treating papules and pustules, the 2019 systemic review also found high-certainty evidence for using azelaic acid and topical ivermectin, and moderate-certainty evidence for using topical metronidazole and topical minocycline. “Topical ivermectin was demonstrated to be the most effective topical treatment for papulopustular rosacea and to provide the greatest psychological benefit to these patients,” Dr. Graber said.

In a double-blind, multicenter 15-week trial comparing azelaic acid 15% gel with metronidazole 0.75% gel in patients with papulopustular rosacea, both agents were found to be effective. But those treated with azelaic acid 15% gel had a greater reduction in lesion counts and erythema, and improvement in global assessments, compared with metronidazole 0.75% gel. However, the azelaic acid 15% gel was associated with more stinging compared with metronidazole 0.75% gel, although it was usually transient.

Another study, a double-blind, single-center, 15-week trial, compared the efficacy of azelaic acid 20% cream with metronidazole 0.75% cream. Both agents were found to be effective and had similar levels of reductions in papules and pustules. However, patients in the azelaic acid 20% cream arm had significantly higher physician ratings of global improvement, as well as overall higher patient satisfaction.

More recently, a phase 3 study of 962 patients found that ivermectin 1% cream once daily improved quality of life slightly more than metronidazole 0.75% cream twice daily. No difference in adverse events were noted between the two agents.

Other options for treating papules and pustules include topical minocycline 1.5% foam, which is FDA approved for rosacea, as well as second-line agents topical sodium sulfacetamide with sulfur cleanser (cream or lotion), and permethrin, Dr. Graber said.

As for treating papules and pustules with oral agents, the strongest evidence favors oral tetracyclines and isotretinoin, she noted.

Doxycycline, minocycline, tetracycline, and sarecycline can be used as monotherapy or coadministered with topical agents. “The addition of topical agents may also help to shorten the duration of antibiotic use, which is very important,” Dr. Graber said.

She noted that oral beta-blockers might be useful to treat persistent erythema and flushing because they antagonize the effects of sympathetic nerve stimulation and circulating catecholamines at b-adrenoceptors. Carvedilol and propranolol have been the most studied. The most common potential side effects are hypotension and bradycardia.

Dr. Graber disclosed that she is a consultant/adviser for Digital Diagnostics, Almirall, Hovione, Keratin Biosciences, La Roche Posay, Ortho Dermatologics, Sebacia, Sol-Gel, Verrica, and WebMD. She is also a research investigator for Hovione, Ortho Dermatologics, Sebacia, and she receives royalties from Wolters Kluwer Health.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

In the clinical experience of Emmy Graber, MD, MBA, rosacea is in the eye of the beholder.

“It’s not really up to us as the providers as to what’s important to the patient or how bad their rosacea is,” she said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “It really is up to the patient,” added Dr. Graber, president of The Dermatology Institute of Boston, who recommends asking patients about how severe they consider their rosacea to be, and what about rosacea bothers them most. Their responses may be surprising.

A study published in 2017 showed that complete resolution of even mild rosacea prolongs remission of rosacea, and most importantly, improves the quality of life for patients. “So, don’t discount what you consider to be mild rosacea in patients,” she said.

Skin care recommendations

“And don’t forget about basic skin care,” she advised. A recently published Chinese study of 999 rosacea patients and 1,010 controls with healthy skin found that a high frequency of cleansing and expansive use of cleansers were positively correlated with rosacea occurrence, suggesting that overcleansing can be a risk factor for rosacea. “Ask your patient, ‘how often are you cleaning your face?’ ” Dr. Graber suggested. “You might find that they’re overdoing it by washing three or four times a day. Several studies have shown that basic skin care alone improves rosacea.”

Skin care recommendations for patients with rosacea include avoiding chemical or physical exfoliants and alcohol-based topical products, and moisturizing and washing their faces with mild, synthetic detergent-based products rather than traditional soaps, which may further alkalinize and irritate the skin. “Patients should also be counseled to use physical-based sunscreens rather than chemical-based sunscreens,” she said.
 

Treating erythema

For treating erythema with topicals, a systematic review published in 2019 found the most evidence for brimonidine 0.33% gel, an alpha2-adrenergic agonist, and oxymetazoline 1% cream, an alpha1-adrenergic agonist. “Both of these products functionally constrict facial blood vessels,” and are Food and Drug Administration approved for treating persistent erythema, Dr. Graber said. “These products improve erythema within 3 hours of and up to 12 hours after application and overall, they are well tolerated.”

Rosacea.org

Based on clinical trial results, about 15% of patients on brimonidine report adverse reactions such as dermatitis, burning, pruritus, and erythema, compared with 8% of patients on oxymetazoline. At the same time, up to 20% of individuals on brimonidine report rebound erythema, compared with fewer than 1% of those using oxymetazoline. Laser and light therapies such as pulse-dye lasers, potassium-titanyl-phosphate lasers, and intense-pulse light devices are also effective in treating persistent erythema but are less effective for transient flushing.
 

Treatment of papules and pustules

For treating papules and pustules, the 2019 systemic review also found high-certainty evidence for using azelaic acid and topical ivermectin, and moderate-certainty evidence for using topical metronidazole and topical minocycline. “Topical ivermectin was demonstrated to be the most effective topical treatment for papulopustular rosacea and to provide the greatest psychological benefit to these patients,” Dr. Graber said.

In a double-blind, multicenter 15-week trial comparing azelaic acid 15% gel with metronidazole 0.75% gel in patients with papulopustular rosacea, both agents were found to be effective. But those treated with azelaic acid 15% gel had a greater reduction in lesion counts and erythema, and improvement in global assessments, compared with metronidazole 0.75% gel. However, the azelaic acid 15% gel was associated with more stinging compared with metronidazole 0.75% gel, although it was usually transient.

Another study, a double-blind, single-center, 15-week trial, compared the efficacy of azelaic acid 20% cream with metronidazole 0.75% cream. Both agents were found to be effective and had similar levels of reductions in papules and pustules. However, patients in the azelaic acid 20% cream arm had significantly higher physician ratings of global improvement, as well as overall higher patient satisfaction.

More recently, a phase 3 study of 962 patients found that ivermectin 1% cream once daily improved quality of life slightly more than metronidazole 0.75% cream twice daily. No difference in adverse events were noted between the two agents.

Other options for treating papules and pustules include topical minocycline 1.5% foam, which is FDA approved for rosacea, as well as second-line agents topical sodium sulfacetamide with sulfur cleanser (cream or lotion), and permethrin, Dr. Graber said.

As for treating papules and pustules with oral agents, the strongest evidence favors oral tetracyclines and isotretinoin, she noted.

Doxycycline, minocycline, tetracycline, and sarecycline can be used as monotherapy or coadministered with topical agents. “The addition of topical agents may also help to shorten the duration of antibiotic use, which is very important,” Dr. Graber said.

She noted that oral beta-blockers might be useful to treat persistent erythema and flushing because they antagonize the effects of sympathetic nerve stimulation and circulating catecholamines at b-adrenoceptors. Carvedilol and propranolol have been the most studied. The most common potential side effects are hypotension and bradycardia.

Dr. Graber disclosed that she is a consultant/adviser for Digital Diagnostics, Almirall, Hovione, Keratin Biosciences, La Roche Posay, Ortho Dermatologics, Sebacia, Sol-Gel, Verrica, and WebMD. She is also a research investigator for Hovione, Ortho Dermatologics, Sebacia, and she receives royalties from Wolters Kluwer Health.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

For the last 25 years, my colleagues have spent midday on Wednesdays at clinical rounds as a group – a time spent reviewing cases in perinatal psychiatry and important new scientific findings in the literature that inform patient care. At the start of the pandemic, my colleague Marlene Freeman, MD, and I started Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health to open our rounds to colleagues involved in multiple aspects of perinatal psychiatric care.

In my last column of 2021, I wanted to take the opportunity to reflect on some of what we have learned from 19 months of virtual rounding as a community of clinicians during the pandemic.

Telemedicine

Telemedicine allows us to see into the homes, relationships, and environments of our pregnant and postpartum women in a way we could never have imagined. It’s an opportunity to follow patients closely and intervene sooner rather than later, which might have been constrained by pre–COVID-19 typical scheduled office appointments. Telemedicine also gives us a clearer sense of some of the issues faced by underserved and marginalized populations of patients as we look to increase outreach to those groups.

COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy

We now know much more about the potential for COVID-19 to cause complications during pregnancy than we did earlier in the pandemic. Although there may be a variety of factors fueling whether those in the general population decide to get vaccinated or not, there is no ambiguity in the message from our colleagues in obstetrics about the importance of vaccination for pregnant and postpartum women.

Bipolar disorder

Appropriate treatment for the spectrum of subtypes of bipolar disorder during pregnancy in the postpartum period is a frequent topic of discussion that colleagues raise. The pandemic has kindled clinical worsening for women with mood and anxiety disorders presumably driven by a host of factors ranging from shifts in medication adherence to sleep dysregulation to name just a few. Bipolar II disorder is underdiagnosed, yet there’s a growing appreciation of the morbidity associated with this subtype of bipolar disorder, which probably equals that of other groups on the bipolar spectrum such as those with bipolar I disorder.

Sustaining emotional well-being for bipolar women during pregnancy has never been more important than during the pandemic since psychiatric illness during pregnancy is the strongest predictor of risk for postpartum psychiatric disorder and the literature demonstrates that bipolar women are at particular risk for postpartum mood disorder. Historically, treatment of bipolar disorder during pregnancy was particularly problematic for clinicians and patients deciding about potential use of pharmacotherapy because options were finite; some treatments were known teratogens (valproate and to a far less extent lithium) and other newer treatments for bipolar disorder had sparse reproductive safety data (second-generation antipsychotics).

The message today is we have tools to safely treat bipolar disorder during pregnancy and the postpartum period not available 10 years ago. Lithium is likely underused and can be safely used during pregnancy; we have vast data on the effectiveness of lithium in bipolar disorder. Clinicians should also know that lamotrigine is safe to use for pregnant women with bipolar disorder and the data show no increased risk for major malformations associated with first trimester exposure. In the case of atypical antipsychotics, which increasingly are used in the treatment of bipolar disorder, the take-home message is our comfort level using these medicines during pregnancy is growing given more data supporting that atypical antipsychotics are not major teratogens.

We’ve also learned polytherapy is the rule, not the exception. As my colleague Adele Viguera, MD, recently referenced in Virtual Rounds: Polytherapy is a small price to pay when the other side is sustaining euthymia in bipolar disorder.

What we’ve learned about treating perinatal mood disorder is it takes a village of clinicians and resources to treat and mitigate risk for recurrence. Nothing is more important than either ensuring or recapturing maternal euthymia. The flip side is a recent report that maternal self-harm/suicide is the leading cause of death in the first year postpartum. It is a charge to the medical community at large to screen for maternal psychiatric illness and, more importantly, to refer patients and ensure they receive adequate care during the postpartum period.
 

Anxiety

Anxiety and insomnia have been prevalent during the pandemic. Pregnancy-associated and postpartum anxiety have been underappreciated in lieu of focusing on perinatal depression, and we lack consensus regarding the most appropriate treatment of perinatal anxiety. Nonpharmacologic interventions have been extremely helpful for women whose anxiety is mild to moderate or as an adjunct to pharmacologic intervention for patients with more severe anxiety disorders.

Robust data on untreated anxiety during pregnancy suggest it leads to adverse outcomes. The reproductive safety rules above for depression also apply for anxiety. Here, we find a multimodal approach, both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic, optimizes treatment for that population.

Clinicians have asked about other medicines many women take to treat anxiety including gabapentin, hydroxyzine, and benzodiazepines. Because of concerns about dependence and about using benzodiazepines during pregnancy, hydroxyzine is frequently used despite sparse reproductive safety data. Data on the effectiveness of hydroxyzine is even smaller and tends to be incomplete for patients with more moderate to severe anxiety.

Our comfort level in our center is greater for using benzodiazepines in patients who are clearly not at risk for substance use disorder because particularly when used with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, we find it optimizes treatment, mitigates symptoms, and attenuates suffering.
 

Insomnia

For insomnia, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTI) has the most data for effectiveness. Pharmacologic interventions such as gabapentin and benzodiazepines are also frequently used as therapies for insomnia.

Concern about treating insomnia by perinatal psychiatrists comes from the knowledge that insomnia is so often comorbid with anxiety and depression. Psychiatrists must consider the possibility that complaints of insomnia are part of an underlying mood or anxiety disorder; it would be unfortunate to miss the underlying illness and only treat just symptoms of insomnia. That being said, circumscribed insomnia is not uncommon during pregnancy and needs to be managed accordingly.
 

Postpartum psychosis

It’s been noteworthy the extent to which rare cases of postpartum psychosis have been presented in our Virtual Round meetings during the pandemic. As discussed previously, postpartum psychosis is one of the most serious illnesses we treat in reproductive psychiatry.

The debate as to whether postpartum psychosis is a discrete circumscribed illness or an illness that recurs over time won’t be answered without better longitudinal data. What we can say is there is no role, particularly during the pandemic, for outpatient management of postpartum psychosis. The waxing and waning of psychotic symptoms, while reassuring when patients are compensated, are of great concern when patients are psychotic and not in a safe environment.

While there are no consensus guidelines for postpartum psychosis treatment, the data support use of agents such as lithium. Growing data exist on the use of atypical antipsychotics to ameliorate psychotic symptoms and get patients functioning as quickly as possible. Resolution of postpartum psychosis may take a considerable amount of time. During the pandemic, it is critical that appropriate resources be managed before patients leave the hospital, including support by family, open communication with community-based providers, and support groups.

Nineteen months into the pandemic, it seems we’ve learned much: how to leverage technology like telemedicine, and the upsides of folding in our multidisciplinary colleagues to reduce barriers around collaboration and learn from one another to provide the best care for our shared patients.

*This column was updated on Jan. 11. 2022.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

For the last 25 years, my colleagues have spent midday on Wednesdays at clinical rounds as a group – a time spent reviewing cases in perinatal psychiatry and important new scientific findings in the literature that inform patient care. At the start of the pandemic, my colleague Marlene Freeman, MD, and I started Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health to open our rounds to colleagues involved in multiple aspects of perinatal psychiatric care.

In my last column of 2021, I wanted to take the opportunity to reflect on some of what we have learned from 19 months of virtual rounding as a community of clinicians during the pandemic.

Telemedicine

Telemedicine allows us to see into the homes, relationships, and environments of our pregnant and postpartum women in a way we could never have imagined. It’s an opportunity to follow patients closely and intervene sooner rather than later, which might have been constrained by pre–COVID-19 typical scheduled office appointments. Telemedicine also gives us a clearer sense of some of the issues faced by underserved and marginalized populations of patients as we look to increase outreach to those groups.

COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy

We now know much more about the potential for COVID-19 to cause complications during pregnancy than we did earlier in the pandemic. Although there may be a variety of factors fueling whether those in the general population decide to get vaccinated or not, there is no ambiguity in the message from our colleagues in obstetrics about the importance of vaccination for pregnant and postpartum women.

Bipolar disorder

Appropriate treatment for the spectrum of subtypes of bipolar disorder during pregnancy in the postpartum period is a frequent topic of discussion that colleagues raise. The pandemic has kindled clinical worsening for women with mood and anxiety disorders presumably driven by a host of factors ranging from shifts in medication adherence to sleep dysregulation to name just a few. Bipolar II disorder is underdiagnosed, yet there’s a growing appreciation of the morbidity associated with this subtype of bipolar disorder, which probably equals that of other groups on the bipolar spectrum such as those with bipolar I disorder.

Sustaining emotional well-being for bipolar women during pregnancy has never been more important than during the pandemic since psychiatric illness during pregnancy is the strongest predictor of risk for postpartum psychiatric disorder and the literature demonstrates that bipolar women are at particular risk for postpartum mood disorder. Historically, treatment of bipolar disorder during pregnancy was particularly problematic for clinicians and patients deciding about potential use of pharmacotherapy because options were finite; some treatments were known teratogens (valproate and to a far less extent lithium) and other newer treatments for bipolar disorder had sparse reproductive safety data (second-generation antipsychotics).

The message today is we have tools to safely treat bipolar disorder during pregnancy and the postpartum period not available 10 years ago. Lithium is likely underused and can be safely used during pregnancy; we have vast data on the effectiveness of lithium in bipolar disorder. Clinicians should also know that lamotrigine is safe to use for pregnant women with bipolar disorder and the data show no increased risk for major malformations associated with first trimester exposure. In the case of atypical antipsychotics, which increasingly are used in the treatment of bipolar disorder, the take-home message is our comfort level using these medicines during pregnancy is growing given more data supporting that atypical antipsychotics are not major teratogens.

We’ve also learned polytherapy is the rule, not the exception. As my colleague Adele Viguera, MD, recently referenced in Virtual Rounds: Polytherapy is a small price to pay when the other side is sustaining euthymia in bipolar disorder.

What we’ve learned about treating perinatal mood disorder is it takes a village of clinicians and resources to treat and mitigate risk for recurrence. Nothing is more important than either ensuring or recapturing maternal euthymia. The flip side is a recent report that maternal self-harm/suicide is the leading cause of death in the first year postpartum. It is a charge to the medical community at large to screen for maternal psychiatric illness and, more importantly, to refer patients and ensure they receive adequate care during the postpartum period.
 

Anxiety

Anxiety and insomnia have been prevalent during the pandemic. Pregnancy-associated and postpartum anxiety have been underappreciated in lieu of focusing on perinatal depression, and we lack consensus regarding the most appropriate treatment of perinatal anxiety. Nonpharmacologic interventions have been extremely helpful for women whose anxiety is mild to moderate or as an adjunct to pharmacologic intervention for patients with more severe anxiety disorders.

Robust data on untreated anxiety during pregnancy suggest it leads to adverse outcomes. The reproductive safety rules above for depression also apply for anxiety. Here, we find a multimodal approach, both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic, optimizes treatment for that population.

Clinicians have asked about other medicines many women take to treat anxiety including gabapentin, hydroxyzine, and benzodiazepines. Because of concerns about dependence and about using benzodiazepines during pregnancy, hydroxyzine is frequently used despite sparse reproductive safety data. Data on the effectiveness of hydroxyzine is even smaller and tends to be incomplete for patients with more moderate to severe anxiety.

Our comfort level in our center is greater for using benzodiazepines in patients who are clearly not at risk for substance use disorder because particularly when used with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, we find it optimizes treatment, mitigates symptoms, and attenuates suffering.
 

Insomnia

For insomnia, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTI) has the most data for effectiveness. Pharmacologic interventions such as gabapentin and benzodiazepines are also frequently used as therapies for insomnia.

Concern about treating insomnia by perinatal psychiatrists comes from the knowledge that insomnia is so often comorbid with anxiety and depression. Psychiatrists must consider the possibility that complaints of insomnia are part of an underlying mood or anxiety disorder; it would be unfortunate to miss the underlying illness and only treat just symptoms of insomnia. That being said, circumscribed insomnia is not uncommon during pregnancy and needs to be managed accordingly.
 

Postpartum psychosis

It’s been noteworthy the extent to which rare cases of postpartum psychosis have been presented in our Virtual Round meetings during the pandemic. As discussed previously, postpartum psychosis is one of the most serious illnesses we treat in reproductive psychiatry.

The debate as to whether postpartum psychosis is a discrete circumscribed illness or an illness that recurs over time won’t be answered without better longitudinal data. What we can say is there is no role, particularly during the pandemic, for outpatient management of postpartum psychosis. The waxing and waning of psychotic symptoms, while reassuring when patients are compensated, are of great concern when patients are psychotic and not in a safe environment.

While there are no consensus guidelines for postpartum psychosis treatment, the data support use of agents such as lithium. Growing data exist on the use of atypical antipsychotics to ameliorate psychotic symptoms and get patients functioning as quickly as possible. Resolution of postpartum psychosis may take a considerable amount of time. During the pandemic, it is critical that appropriate resources be managed before patients leave the hospital, including support by family, open communication with community-based providers, and support groups.

Nineteen months into the pandemic, it seems we’ve learned much: how to leverage technology like telemedicine, and the upsides of folding in our multidisciplinary colleagues to reduce barriers around collaboration and learn from one another to provide the best care for our shared patients.

*This column was updated on Jan. 11. 2022.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

For the last 25 years, my colleagues have spent midday on Wednesdays at clinical rounds as a group – a time spent reviewing cases in perinatal psychiatry and important new scientific findings in the literature that inform patient care. At the start of the pandemic, my colleague Marlene Freeman, MD, and I started Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health to open our rounds to colleagues involved in multiple aspects of perinatal psychiatric care.

In my last column of 2021, I wanted to take the opportunity to reflect on some of what we have learned from 19 months of virtual rounding as a community of clinicians during the pandemic.

Telemedicine

Telemedicine allows us to see into the homes, relationships, and environments of our pregnant and postpartum women in a way we could never have imagined. It’s an opportunity to follow patients closely and intervene sooner rather than later, which might have been constrained by pre–COVID-19 typical scheduled office appointments. Telemedicine also gives us a clearer sense of some of the issues faced by underserved and marginalized populations of patients as we look to increase outreach to those groups.

COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy

We now know much more about the potential for COVID-19 to cause complications during pregnancy than we did earlier in the pandemic. Although there may be a variety of factors fueling whether those in the general population decide to get vaccinated or not, there is no ambiguity in the message from our colleagues in obstetrics about the importance of vaccination for pregnant and postpartum women.

Bipolar disorder

Appropriate treatment for the spectrum of subtypes of bipolar disorder during pregnancy in the postpartum period is a frequent topic of discussion that colleagues raise. The pandemic has kindled clinical worsening for women with mood and anxiety disorders presumably driven by a host of factors ranging from shifts in medication adherence to sleep dysregulation to name just a few. Bipolar II disorder is underdiagnosed, yet there’s a growing appreciation of the morbidity associated with this subtype of bipolar disorder, which probably equals that of other groups on the bipolar spectrum such as those with bipolar I disorder.

Sustaining emotional well-being for bipolar women during pregnancy has never been more important than during the pandemic since psychiatric illness during pregnancy is the strongest predictor of risk for postpartum psychiatric disorder and the literature demonstrates that bipolar women are at particular risk for postpartum mood disorder. Historically, treatment of bipolar disorder during pregnancy was particularly problematic for clinicians and patients deciding about potential use of pharmacotherapy because options were finite; some treatments were known teratogens (valproate and to a far less extent lithium) and other newer treatments for bipolar disorder had sparse reproductive safety data (second-generation antipsychotics).

The message today is we have tools to safely treat bipolar disorder during pregnancy and the postpartum period not available 10 years ago. Lithium is likely underused and can be safely used during pregnancy; we have vast data on the effectiveness of lithium in bipolar disorder. Clinicians should also know that lamotrigine is safe to use for pregnant women with bipolar disorder and the data show no increased risk for major malformations associated with first trimester exposure. In the case of atypical antipsychotics, which increasingly are used in the treatment of bipolar disorder, the take-home message is our comfort level using these medicines during pregnancy is growing given more data supporting that atypical antipsychotics are not major teratogens.

We’ve also learned polytherapy is the rule, not the exception. As my colleague Adele Viguera, MD, recently referenced in Virtual Rounds: Polytherapy is a small price to pay when the other side is sustaining euthymia in bipolar disorder.

What we’ve learned about treating perinatal mood disorder is it takes a village of clinicians and resources to treat and mitigate risk for recurrence. Nothing is more important than either ensuring or recapturing maternal euthymia. The flip side is a recent report that maternal self-harm/suicide is the leading cause of death in the first year postpartum. It is a charge to the medical community at large to screen for maternal psychiatric illness and, more importantly, to refer patients and ensure they receive adequate care during the postpartum period.
 

Anxiety

Anxiety and insomnia have been prevalent during the pandemic. Pregnancy-associated and postpartum anxiety have been underappreciated in lieu of focusing on perinatal depression, and we lack consensus regarding the most appropriate treatment of perinatal anxiety. Nonpharmacologic interventions have been extremely helpful for women whose anxiety is mild to moderate or as an adjunct to pharmacologic intervention for patients with more severe anxiety disorders.

Robust data on untreated anxiety during pregnancy suggest it leads to adverse outcomes. The reproductive safety rules above for depression also apply for anxiety. Here, we find a multimodal approach, both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic, optimizes treatment for that population.

Clinicians have asked about other medicines many women take to treat anxiety including gabapentin, hydroxyzine, and benzodiazepines. Because of concerns about dependence and about using benzodiazepines during pregnancy, hydroxyzine is frequently used despite sparse reproductive safety data. Data on the effectiveness of hydroxyzine is even smaller and tends to be incomplete for patients with more moderate to severe anxiety.

Our comfort level in our center is greater for using benzodiazepines in patients who are clearly not at risk for substance use disorder because particularly when used with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, we find it optimizes treatment, mitigates symptoms, and attenuates suffering.
 

Insomnia

For insomnia, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTI) has the most data for effectiveness. Pharmacologic interventions such as gabapentin and benzodiazepines are also frequently used as therapies for insomnia.

Concern about treating insomnia by perinatal psychiatrists comes from the knowledge that insomnia is so often comorbid with anxiety and depression. Psychiatrists must consider the possibility that complaints of insomnia are part of an underlying mood or anxiety disorder; it would be unfortunate to miss the underlying illness and only treat just symptoms of insomnia. That being said, circumscribed insomnia is not uncommon during pregnancy and needs to be managed accordingly.
 

Postpartum psychosis

It’s been noteworthy the extent to which rare cases of postpartum psychosis have been presented in our Virtual Round meetings during the pandemic. As discussed previously, postpartum psychosis is one of the most serious illnesses we treat in reproductive psychiatry.

The debate as to whether postpartum psychosis is a discrete circumscribed illness or an illness that recurs over time won’t be answered without better longitudinal data. What we can say is there is no role, particularly during the pandemic, for outpatient management of postpartum psychosis. The waxing and waning of psychotic symptoms, while reassuring when patients are compensated, are of great concern when patients are psychotic and not in a safe environment.

While there are no consensus guidelines for postpartum psychosis treatment, the data support use of agents such as lithium. Growing data exist on the use of atypical antipsychotics to ameliorate psychotic symptoms and get patients functioning as quickly as possible. Resolution of postpartum psychosis may take a considerable amount of time. During the pandemic, it is critical that appropriate resources be managed before patients leave the hospital, including support by family, open communication with community-based providers, and support groups.

Nineteen months into the pandemic, it seems we’ve learned much: how to leverage technology like telemedicine, and the upsides of folding in our multidisciplinary colleagues to reduce barriers around collaboration and learn from one another to provide the best care for our shared patients.

*This column was updated on Jan. 11. 2022.
 

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

A study on the role of the ocular surface microbiome in rosacea pathogenesis and an investigation of elevated intracellular signals in rosacea lesions earned new research funding from the National Rosacea Society (NRS) this year, as part of the organization’s research grants program.

National Rosacea Society

The NRS research grants program was created to increase knowledge and understanding of not only the potential causes of rosacea, but other aspects of the disease that may inform prevention, treatment, or a potential cure, according to the press release announcing the recipients.

New research grant recipient Sezen Karakus, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, received $15,000 for a study on the contribution of the ocular surface microbiome to the development of rosacea. Ocular rosacea can result in corneal complications severe enough to affect vision, and identifying the microorganisms on the ocular surface may lead to new treatment strategies, Dr. Karakus said in the release. He will collaborate on this research with dermatologist Noori Kim, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

A second new research grant went to Emmanuel Contassot, MD, project leader in the dermatology department at of the University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, who received $5,000 to investigate whether certain elevated intracellular signals in rosacea lesions may promote the skin inflammation that may be a root cause of the condition.

The NRS also renewed its support of a pair of ongoing studies. Michelle Trautwein, MD, of the Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability at the California Academy of Sciences, continues her work on the first study to sequence the genome of Demodex mites; the study also identifies associated bacteria that may play a role in rosacea.

National Rosacea Society

A study on the role of the ocular surface microbiome in rosacea pathogenesis and an investigation of elevated intracellular signals in rosacea lesions earned new research funding from the National Rosacea Society (NRS) this year, as part of the organization’s research grants program.

National Rosacea Society

The NRS research grants program was created to increase knowledge and understanding of not only the potential causes of rosacea, but other aspects of the disease that may inform prevention, treatment, or a potential cure, according to the press release announcing the recipients.

New research grant recipient Sezen Karakus, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, received $15,000 for a study on the contribution of the ocular surface microbiome to the development of rosacea. Ocular rosacea can result in corneal complications severe enough to affect vision, and identifying the microorganisms on the ocular surface may lead to new treatment strategies, Dr. Karakus said in the release. He will collaborate on this research with dermatologist Noori Kim, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

A second new research grant went to Emmanuel Contassot, MD, project leader in the dermatology department at of the University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, who received $5,000 to investigate whether certain elevated intracellular signals in rosacea lesions may promote the skin inflammation that may be a root cause of the condition.

The NRS also renewed its support of a pair of ongoing studies. Michelle Trautwein, MD, of the Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability at the California Academy of Sciences, continues her work on the first study to sequence the genome of Demodex mites; the study also identifies associated bacteria that may play a role in rosacea.

National Rosacea Society

A study on the role of the ocular surface microbiome in rosacea pathogenesis and an investigation of elevated intracellular signals in rosacea lesions earned new research funding from the National Rosacea Society (NRS) this year, as part of the organization’s research grants program.

National Rosacea Society

The NRS research grants program was created to increase knowledge and understanding of not only the potential causes of rosacea, but other aspects of the disease that may inform prevention, treatment, or a potential cure, according to the press release announcing the recipients.

New research grant recipient Sezen Karakus, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, received $15,000 for a study on the contribution of the ocular surface microbiome to the development of rosacea. Ocular rosacea can result in corneal complications severe enough to affect vision, and identifying the microorganisms on the ocular surface may lead to new treatment strategies, Dr. Karakus said in the release. He will collaborate on this research with dermatologist Noori Kim, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

A second new research grant went to Emmanuel Contassot, MD, project leader in the dermatology department at of the University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, who received $5,000 to investigate whether certain elevated intracellular signals in rosacea lesions may promote the skin inflammation that may be a root cause of the condition.

The NRS also renewed its support of a pair of ongoing studies. Michelle Trautwein, MD, of the Institute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability at the California Academy of Sciences, continues her work on the first study to sequence the genome of Demodex mites; the study also identifies associated bacteria that may play a role in rosacea.

National Rosacea Society

Treatment with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose significantly improved symptoms in restless legs syndrome (RLS) patients with iron-deficiency anemia (IDA), data from 29 adults show.

RLS occurs among individuals with normal iron but is at least six times higher among individuals with IDA, Hyoeun Bae, MD, of Keimyung University, Daegu, South Korea, and colleagues wrote. Previous studies have explored iron treatments for RLS patients with IDA, however, guidelines for treatment have not yet been published.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers randomized 29 RLS patients with IDA to either 1,500 mg IV ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) or placebo for a short-term period of 6 weeks, followed by a phase 2 study for responders that lasted for 52 weeks. Baseline characteristics, including age, gender, iron parameters, and sleep and mood scales were similar between the groups.

At 6 weeks, patients in the FCM group showed significant improvement in RLS symptom severity based on changes from baseline International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group scale (IRLS) scores, compared with placebo patients (–13.47 vs. 1.36, P < .001). A secondary outcome of sleep quality also improved significantly in the FCM group, compared with the placebo group.

After 6 weeks, 11 of the 14 patients in the placebo group also received 1,500 mg FCM for an open-label study. These patients also showed significant improvement in IRLS scores from baseline to 6 weeks.

All 23 responders from the short-term studies (13 who received FCM initially and 10 from the postplacebo group) enrolled in a phase 2 long-term study that lasted for 52 weeks; 14 of these completed the full 52-week study period.

Overall, 61% of participants in phase 2 of the study remained off their RLS medications at 52 weeks, and no serious adverse events were reported during the study period. Of these, 10 received one additional dose of FCM and 4 received more than one additional dose. The median change in IRLS score at 4 weeks after treatment was –4.00, compared with the score prior to treatment.

The study is the first of its design to show benefits of intravenous iron therapy for RLS in patients with IDA, the researchers said, noting that the findings of improved, but not cured, RLS symptoms might suggest that more than 1,500 mg of iron is needed to fully treat RLS in this patient population. “A second interpretation is that the RLS and IDA were separate events: a patient with idiopathic RLS who subsequently developed anemia,” they said. “Treating the IDA might improve symptoms but may not eliminate the symptoms.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small study population and inability to know the time frame for the development of IDA, the researchers noted. However, the results support the use of intravenous iron therapy for relief of RLS in IDA patients.

“Since IDA could result in epigenetic changes leading to irreversible state of RLS, then urgent and adequate management of the IDA in RLS patients would seem a very prudent and important clinical approach to this specific clinical condition,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no disclosures.

Treatment with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose significantly improved symptoms in restless legs syndrome (RLS) patients with iron-deficiency anemia (IDA), data from 29 adults show.

RLS occurs among individuals with normal iron but is at least six times higher among individuals with IDA, Hyoeun Bae, MD, of Keimyung University, Daegu, South Korea, and colleagues wrote. Previous studies have explored iron treatments for RLS patients with IDA, however, guidelines for treatment have not yet been published.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers randomized 29 RLS patients with IDA to either 1,500 mg IV ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) or placebo for a short-term period of 6 weeks, followed by a phase 2 study for responders that lasted for 52 weeks. Baseline characteristics, including age, gender, iron parameters, and sleep and mood scales were similar between the groups.

At 6 weeks, patients in the FCM group showed significant improvement in RLS symptom severity based on changes from baseline International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group scale (IRLS) scores, compared with placebo patients (–13.47 vs. 1.36, P < .001). A secondary outcome of sleep quality also improved significantly in the FCM group, compared with the placebo group.

After 6 weeks, 11 of the 14 patients in the placebo group also received 1,500 mg FCM for an open-label study. These patients also showed significant improvement in IRLS scores from baseline to 6 weeks.

All 23 responders from the short-term studies (13 who received FCM initially and 10 from the postplacebo group) enrolled in a phase 2 long-term study that lasted for 52 weeks; 14 of these completed the full 52-week study period.

Overall, 61% of participants in phase 2 of the study remained off their RLS medications at 52 weeks, and no serious adverse events were reported during the study period. Of these, 10 received one additional dose of FCM and 4 received more than one additional dose. The median change in IRLS score at 4 weeks after treatment was –4.00, compared with the score prior to treatment.

The study is the first of its design to show benefits of intravenous iron therapy for RLS in patients with IDA, the researchers said, noting that the findings of improved, but not cured, RLS symptoms might suggest that more than 1,500 mg of iron is needed to fully treat RLS in this patient population. “A second interpretation is that the RLS and IDA were separate events: a patient with idiopathic RLS who subsequently developed anemia,” they said. “Treating the IDA might improve symptoms but may not eliminate the symptoms.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small study population and inability to know the time frame for the development of IDA, the researchers noted. However, the results support the use of intravenous iron therapy for relief of RLS in IDA patients.

“Since IDA could result in epigenetic changes leading to irreversible state of RLS, then urgent and adequate management of the IDA in RLS patients would seem a very prudent and important clinical approach to this specific clinical condition,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no disclosures.

Treatment with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose significantly improved symptoms in restless legs syndrome (RLS) patients with iron-deficiency anemia (IDA), data from 29 adults show.

RLS occurs among individuals with normal iron but is at least six times higher among individuals with IDA, Hyoeun Bae, MD, of Keimyung University, Daegu, South Korea, and colleagues wrote. Previous studies have explored iron treatments for RLS patients with IDA, however, guidelines for treatment have not yet been published.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers randomized 29 RLS patients with IDA to either 1,500 mg IV ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) or placebo for a short-term period of 6 weeks, followed by a phase 2 study for responders that lasted for 52 weeks. Baseline characteristics, including age, gender, iron parameters, and sleep and mood scales were similar between the groups.

At 6 weeks, patients in the FCM group showed significant improvement in RLS symptom severity based on changes from baseline International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group scale (IRLS) scores, compared with placebo patients (–13.47 vs. 1.36, P < .001). A secondary outcome of sleep quality also improved significantly in the FCM group, compared with the placebo group.

After 6 weeks, 11 of the 14 patients in the placebo group also received 1,500 mg FCM for an open-label study. These patients also showed significant improvement in IRLS scores from baseline to 6 weeks.

All 23 responders from the short-term studies (13 who received FCM initially and 10 from the postplacebo group) enrolled in a phase 2 long-term study that lasted for 52 weeks; 14 of these completed the full 52-week study period.

Overall, 61% of participants in phase 2 of the study remained off their RLS medications at 52 weeks, and no serious adverse events were reported during the study period. Of these, 10 received one additional dose of FCM and 4 received more than one additional dose. The median change in IRLS score at 4 weeks after treatment was –4.00, compared with the score prior to treatment.

The study is the first of its design to show benefits of intravenous iron therapy for RLS in patients with IDA, the researchers said, noting that the findings of improved, but not cured, RLS symptoms might suggest that more than 1,500 mg of iron is needed to fully treat RLS in this patient population. “A second interpretation is that the RLS and IDA were separate events: a patient with idiopathic RLS who subsequently developed anemia,” they said. “Treating the IDA might improve symptoms but may not eliminate the symptoms.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small study population and inability to know the time frame for the development of IDA, the researchers noted. However, the results support the use of intravenous iron therapy for relief of RLS in IDA patients.

“Since IDA could result in epigenetic changes leading to irreversible state of RLS, then urgent and adequate management of the IDA in RLS patients would seem a very prudent and important clinical approach to this specific clinical condition,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no disclosures.

Now we’re in the final sprint.

Thanksgiving week is the first pause. I’m lucky. I have more things to be grateful for than I can count. I try to keep that in mind and instill it in my kids.

The second pause comes in December. I always close my office for the last 2 weeks of the year, since most patients are too busy during that time to see me. That means, in a little less than a month from now, my 2021 will be (from a practice point of view) pretty much over.

Of course, it’s really not. Just because the office is closed doesn’t mean there isn’t stuff to do. Patients will call in with pressing issues; refills have to be sent; test results come in and need to be handled correctly.

And that’s just the clinical part. The business part is there, too. It’s time to start wrapping up the corporate year, doing quarterly 941 forms, and preparing stuff for my accountant to file my taxes in the new year. Sifting through receipts, bills, and Quickbooks to get things ready.

But it’s still a relaxing time. My kids will all be home. We’ll have family dinners again for a few weeks. My hot tub will (hopefully) be up and running. I’ll have more time for walks, or talks, or naps (the last one usually with a dog sprawled out on the bed). For 2 weeks I can sleep in.

It also brings reflection. As I close out the paperwork on 2021, I can’t help but think about what went well, what didn’t, and what I can do to make 2022 better. The same applies to personal thoughts: What can I do in the coming year to be a better person and a better doctor?

Two weeks off never seems like long enough, but it’s a good time to pause and think about my little world, and what I can change to make it better for all involved.

That kind of perspective should always be kept in mind, but in the day-to-day hectic world, often it isn’t. It’s important to put it back in place when I can.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Now we’re in the final sprint.

Thanksgiving week is the first pause. I’m lucky. I have more things to be grateful for than I can count. I try to keep that in mind and instill it in my kids.

The second pause comes in December. I always close my office for the last 2 weeks of the year, since most patients are too busy during that time to see me. That means, in a little less than a month from now, my 2021 will be (from a practice point of view) pretty much over.

Of course, it’s really not. Just because the office is closed doesn’t mean there isn’t stuff to do. Patients will call in with pressing issues; refills have to be sent; test results come in and need to be handled correctly.

And that’s just the clinical part. The business part is there, too. It’s time to start wrapping up the corporate year, doing quarterly 941 forms, and preparing stuff for my accountant to file my taxes in the new year. Sifting through receipts, bills, and Quickbooks to get things ready.

But it’s still a relaxing time. My kids will all be home. We’ll have family dinners again for a few weeks. My hot tub will (hopefully) be up and running. I’ll have more time for walks, or talks, or naps (the last one usually with a dog sprawled out on the bed). For 2 weeks I can sleep in.

It also brings reflection. As I close out the paperwork on 2021, I can’t help but think about what went well, what didn’t, and what I can do to make 2022 better. The same applies to personal thoughts: What can I do in the coming year to be a better person and a better doctor?

Two weeks off never seems like long enough, but it’s a good time to pause and think about my little world, and what I can change to make it better for all involved.

That kind of perspective should always be kept in mind, but in the day-to-day hectic world, often it isn’t. It’s important to put it back in place when I can.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Now we’re in the final sprint.

Thanksgiving week is the first pause. I’m lucky. I have more things to be grateful for than I can count. I try to keep that in mind and instill it in my kids.

The second pause comes in December. I always close my office for the last 2 weeks of the year, since most patients are too busy during that time to see me. That means, in a little less than a month from now, my 2021 will be (from a practice point of view) pretty much over.

Of course, it’s really not. Just because the office is closed doesn’t mean there isn’t stuff to do. Patients will call in with pressing issues; refills have to be sent; test results come in and need to be handled correctly.

And that’s just the clinical part. The business part is there, too. It’s time to start wrapping up the corporate year, doing quarterly 941 forms, and preparing stuff for my accountant to file my taxes in the new year. Sifting through receipts, bills, and Quickbooks to get things ready.

But it’s still a relaxing time. My kids will all be home. We’ll have family dinners again for a few weeks. My hot tub will (hopefully) be up and running. I’ll have more time for walks, or talks, or naps (the last one usually with a dog sprawled out on the bed). For 2 weeks I can sleep in.

It also brings reflection. As I close out the paperwork on 2021, I can’t help but think about what went well, what didn’t, and what I can do to make 2022 better. The same applies to personal thoughts: What can I do in the coming year to be a better person and a better doctor?

Two weeks off never seems like long enough, but it’s a good time to pause and think about my little world, and what I can change to make it better for all involved.

That kind of perspective should always be kept in mind, but in the day-to-day hectic world, often it isn’t. It’s important to put it back in place when I can.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Women whose ovaries were surgically removed before the age of 46 had a higher risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) around 30 years later, compared with those who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy, according to a population-based linkage study published in JAMA Network Open.

The findings suggest that “physicians treating women with premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy need to be aware of their patients’ risk of cognitive impairment or MCI and should consider implementing treatment-monitoring plans,” noted lead author Walter A. Rocca, MD, MPH, from the division of epidemiology, department of quantitative health sciences, at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. and colleagues.

The results may particularly “help women at mean risk levels of ovarian cancer to better evaluate the risk-to-benefit ratio of undergoing bilateral oophorectomy prior to spontaneous menopause for the prevention of ovarian cancer,” they emphasized.

While the link between premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy and higher risk of cognitive impairment has been previously suggested, this new study “contributes valuable new data to a major public health importance issue and addresses a number of important shortcomings of existing literature,” Marios K. Georgakis, MD, PhD, and Eleni T. Petridou, MD, PhD, noted in an accompanying commentary.

“As bilateral oophorectomy is still a common procedure at least in well-resourced countries, the results of these studies should alert clinicians about its potential public health consequences. Given that the abrupt cessation of ovarian hormones might be accompanied by previously underestimated long-term adverse effects, treating physicians proposing the operation should weigh its benefits against potential long-term harmful effects, especially among women without an absolute indication,” noted Dr. Georgakis and Dr. Petridou, respectively from the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.

The case-control cross-sectional study used data from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA), a prospective, population-based study examining risk factors for, as well as prevalence and incidence of cognitive decline and MCI among a representative sample of women in Olmsted County, Minn. It included 2,732 women aged 50-89 years who participated in the MCSA study from 2004 to 2019 and underwent a clinical evaluation and comprehensive cognitive testing including nine tests covering four cognitive domains. Almost all of the subjects (98.4%) were White. The mean age of cognitive evaluation was 74 years – at which time 283 women (10.4%) were diagnosed with MCI (197 with amnestic and 86 with nonamnestic MCI). Data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical record–linkage system showed a total of 625 women (22.9%) had a history of bilateral oophorectomy. Among this group, 161 women underwent the procedure both before age 46, and before menopause, with 46 (28.6%) receiving oral conjugated equine estrogen (unopposed) and the remaining 95 (59.0%) receiving no estrogen therapy.

The study found that, compared with women who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy, those who did so before age 46, but not after this age, had statistically significantly increased odds of MCI (adjusted odds ratio, 2.21; P < .001). When type of MCI was examined, the risk was statistically significant for nonamnestic MCI (aOR, 2.96; P < .001), and amnestic (aOR, 1.87; P =.03). The study also found no evidence that estrogen therapy was associated with decreased risk of MCI among women aged less than 46 years, with an aOR of 2.56 in those who received estrogen therapy and 2.05 in those who did not (P = .01 for both).

Finally, in women who had bilateral oophorectomy before menopause and before age 50, surgical indication for the procedure affected the association with MCI. Indications of either cancer or “no ovarian condition” (i.e., performed at the time of hysterectomy) were associated with no increased risk, whereas there was a statistically significantly increased risk associated with benign indications such as an adnexal mass, cyst or endometriosis (aOR, 2.43; P = .003). “This is important,” noted the commentators, “because in many of those cases removal of both ovaries could be avoided.”

The study also found that, compared with women who had not undergone bilateral oophorectomy, those who had also had increased frequency of cardiovascular risk factors, heart disease, and stroke at the time of their cognitive evaluation. “Additional research is needed to clarify the biological explanation of the association,” the investigators said.

The prevailing hypothesis for why premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy is associated with cognitive decline “is that the abrupt endocrine cessation of exposure to ovarian hormones accelerates the aging process,” the commentators noted. “Most important from a clinical perspective is whether these women would benefit from specific hormone replacement therapy schemes. Observational studies cannot reliably answer this question, and possibly it is time to rethink designing trials in specific groups of women who underwent bilateral oophorectomy before 46 years of age starting treatment immediately thereafter.”

In an interview Dr. Georgakis elaborated on this point, saying that, while the Women’s Health Study clearly showed no benefit of hormone replacement therapy for preventing dementia, it recruited women who were aged 65 years or older and had therefore undergone menopause more than 10-15 years earlier. “A hypothesis suggests that a critical vulnerability window exists shortly after menopause during which hormone replacement therapy might be needed to ameliorate any elevated risk,” he said. “Thus, it might make sense to reconsider a trial focused on this group of premenopausal women, who need to undergo oophorectomy at a young age (<46 years). Early initiation would be important. Unfortunately, such a trial would be difficult to conduct, because these women would need to be followed up for very long periods, as cognitive decline usually does not occur before the age of 65.”

Asked to comment on the study, Meadow Good, DO, an ob.gyn., female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeon, and physician adviser for Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women & Babies in Orlando, said this study adds credibility to previous studies showing the cognitive risk associated with premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy. “The literature is now pointing to a need to refrain from elective bilateral oophorectomy in women less than 60,” she said in an interview. “It should not be common that a women receives a bilateral oophorectomy before 60 for benign reasons.”

She added that cognition is not the only think at stake. “Bilateral oophorectomy before the age of 60 has a higher risk of incident heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and total cancers,” she said, citing a prospective cohort study within the Nurses’ Health Study.

Dr. Rocca reported financial support from the Mayo Clinic Research Committee during the conduct of the study. One coauthor reported unrestricted grants from Biogen and consulting fees from Brain Protection outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported from the authors. Dr. Georgakis, Dr. Petridou, and Dr. Good reported no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. It also used resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical record–linkage system, which is supported by the NIA, the Mayo Clinic Research Committee, and user fees. Dr. Rocca was partly funded by the Ralph S. and Beverley E. Caulkins Professorship of Neurodegenerative Diseases Research of the Mayo Clinic.

Women whose ovaries were surgically removed before the age of 46 had a higher risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) around 30 years later, compared with those who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy, according to a population-based linkage study published in JAMA Network Open.

The findings suggest that “physicians treating women with premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy need to be aware of their patients’ risk of cognitive impairment or MCI and should consider implementing treatment-monitoring plans,” noted lead author Walter A. Rocca, MD, MPH, from the division of epidemiology, department of quantitative health sciences, at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. and colleagues.

The results may particularly “help women at mean risk levels of ovarian cancer to better evaluate the risk-to-benefit ratio of undergoing bilateral oophorectomy prior to spontaneous menopause for the prevention of ovarian cancer,” they emphasized.

While the link between premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy and higher risk of cognitive impairment has been previously suggested, this new study “contributes valuable new data to a major public health importance issue and addresses a number of important shortcomings of existing literature,” Marios K. Georgakis, MD, PhD, and Eleni T. Petridou, MD, PhD, noted in an accompanying commentary.

“As bilateral oophorectomy is still a common procedure at least in well-resourced countries, the results of these studies should alert clinicians about its potential public health consequences. Given that the abrupt cessation of ovarian hormones might be accompanied by previously underestimated long-term adverse effects, treating physicians proposing the operation should weigh its benefits against potential long-term harmful effects, especially among women without an absolute indication,” noted Dr. Georgakis and Dr. Petridou, respectively from the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.

The case-control cross-sectional study used data from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA), a prospective, population-based study examining risk factors for, as well as prevalence and incidence of cognitive decline and MCI among a representative sample of women in Olmsted County, Minn. It included 2,732 women aged 50-89 years who participated in the MCSA study from 2004 to 2019 and underwent a clinical evaluation and comprehensive cognitive testing including nine tests covering four cognitive domains. Almost all of the subjects (98.4%) were White. The mean age of cognitive evaluation was 74 years – at which time 283 women (10.4%) were diagnosed with MCI (197 with amnestic and 86 with nonamnestic MCI). Data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical record–linkage system showed a total of 625 women (22.9%) had a history of bilateral oophorectomy. Among this group, 161 women underwent the procedure both before age 46, and before menopause, with 46 (28.6%) receiving oral conjugated equine estrogen (unopposed) and the remaining 95 (59.0%) receiving no estrogen therapy.

The study found that, compared with women who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy, those who did so before age 46, but not after this age, had statistically significantly increased odds of MCI (adjusted odds ratio, 2.21; P < .001). When type of MCI was examined, the risk was statistically significant for nonamnestic MCI (aOR, 2.96; P < .001), and amnestic (aOR, 1.87; P =.03). The study also found no evidence that estrogen therapy was associated with decreased risk of MCI among women aged less than 46 years, with an aOR of 2.56 in those who received estrogen therapy and 2.05 in those who did not (P = .01 for both).

Finally, in women who had bilateral oophorectomy before menopause and before age 50, surgical indication for the procedure affected the association with MCI. Indications of either cancer or “no ovarian condition” (i.e., performed at the time of hysterectomy) were associated with no increased risk, whereas there was a statistically significantly increased risk associated with benign indications such as an adnexal mass, cyst or endometriosis (aOR, 2.43; P = .003). “This is important,” noted the commentators, “because in many of those cases removal of both ovaries could be avoided.”

The study also found that, compared with women who had not undergone bilateral oophorectomy, those who had also had increased frequency of cardiovascular risk factors, heart disease, and stroke at the time of their cognitive evaluation. “Additional research is needed to clarify the biological explanation of the association,” the investigators said.

The prevailing hypothesis for why premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy is associated with cognitive decline “is that the abrupt endocrine cessation of exposure to ovarian hormones accelerates the aging process,” the commentators noted. “Most important from a clinical perspective is whether these women would benefit from specific hormone replacement therapy schemes. Observational studies cannot reliably answer this question, and possibly it is time to rethink designing trials in specific groups of women who underwent bilateral oophorectomy before 46 years of age starting treatment immediately thereafter.”

In an interview Dr. Georgakis elaborated on this point, saying that, while the Women’s Health Study clearly showed no benefit of hormone replacement therapy for preventing dementia, it recruited women who were aged 65 years or older and had therefore undergone menopause more than 10-15 years earlier. “A hypothesis suggests that a critical vulnerability window exists shortly after menopause during which hormone replacement therapy might be needed to ameliorate any elevated risk,” he said. “Thus, it might make sense to reconsider a trial focused on this group of premenopausal women, who need to undergo oophorectomy at a young age (<46 years). Early initiation would be important. Unfortunately, such a trial would be difficult to conduct, because these women would need to be followed up for very long periods, as cognitive decline usually does not occur before the age of 65.”

Asked to comment on the study, Meadow Good, DO, an ob.gyn., female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeon, and physician adviser for Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women & Babies in Orlando, said this study adds credibility to previous studies showing the cognitive risk associated with premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy. “The literature is now pointing to a need to refrain from elective bilateral oophorectomy in women less than 60,” she said in an interview. “It should not be common that a women receives a bilateral oophorectomy before 60 for benign reasons.”

She added that cognition is not the only think at stake. “Bilateral oophorectomy before the age of 60 has a higher risk of incident heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and total cancers,” she said, citing a prospective cohort study within the Nurses’ Health Study.

Dr. Rocca reported financial support from the Mayo Clinic Research Committee during the conduct of the study. One coauthor reported unrestricted grants from Biogen and consulting fees from Brain Protection outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported from the authors. Dr. Georgakis, Dr. Petridou, and Dr. Good reported no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. It also used resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical record–linkage system, which is supported by the NIA, the Mayo Clinic Research Committee, and user fees. Dr. Rocca was partly funded by the Ralph S. and Beverley E. Caulkins Professorship of Neurodegenerative Diseases Research of the Mayo Clinic.

Women whose ovaries were surgically removed before the age of 46 had a higher risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) around 30 years later, compared with those who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy, according to a population-based linkage study published in JAMA Network Open.

The findings suggest that “physicians treating women with premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy need to be aware of their patients’ risk of cognitive impairment or MCI and should consider implementing treatment-monitoring plans,” noted lead author Walter A. Rocca, MD, MPH, from the division of epidemiology, department of quantitative health sciences, at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. and colleagues.

The results may particularly “help women at mean risk levels of ovarian cancer to better evaluate the risk-to-benefit ratio of undergoing bilateral oophorectomy prior to spontaneous menopause for the prevention of ovarian cancer,” they emphasized.

While the link between premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy and higher risk of cognitive impairment has been previously suggested, this new study “contributes valuable new data to a major public health importance issue and addresses a number of important shortcomings of existing literature,” Marios K. Georgakis, MD, PhD, and Eleni T. Petridou, MD, PhD, noted in an accompanying commentary.

“As bilateral oophorectomy is still a common procedure at least in well-resourced countries, the results of these studies should alert clinicians about its potential public health consequences. Given that the abrupt cessation of ovarian hormones might be accompanied by previously underestimated long-term adverse effects, treating physicians proposing the operation should weigh its benefits against potential long-term harmful effects, especially among women without an absolute indication,” noted Dr. Georgakis and Dr. Petridou, respectively from the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.

The case-control cross-sectional study used data from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA), a prospective, population-based study examining risk factors for, as well as prevalence and incidence of cognitive decline and MCI among a representative sample of women in Olmsted County, Minn. It included 2,732 women aged 50-89 years who participated in the MCSA study from 2004 to 2019 and underwent a clinical evaluation and comprehensive cognitive testing including nine tests covering four cognitive domains. Almost all of the subjects (98.4%) were White. The mean age of cognitive evaluation was 74 years – at which time 283 women (10.4%) were diagnosed with MCI (197 with amnestic and 86 with nonamnestic MCI). Data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical record–linkage system showed a total of 625 women (22.9%) had a history of bilateral oophorectomy. Among this group, 161 women underwent the procedure both before age 46, and before menopause, with 46 (28.6%) receiving oral conjugated equine estrogen (unopposed) and the remaining 95 (59.0%) receiving no estrogen therapy.

The study found that, compared with women who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy, those who did so before age 46, but not after this age, had statistically significantly increased odds of MCI (adjusted odds ratio, 2.21; P < .001). When type of MCI was examined, the risk was statistically significant for nonamnestic MCI (aOR, 2.96; P < .001), and amnestic (aOR, 1.87; P =.03). The study also found no evidence that estrogen therapy was associated with decreased risk of MCI among women aged less than 46 years, with an aOR of 2.56 in those who received estrogen therapy and 2.05 in those who did not (P = .01 for both).

Finally, in women who had bilateral oophorectomy before menopause and before age 50, surgical indication for the procedure affected the association with MCI. Indications of either cancer or “no ovarian condition” (i.e., performed at the time of hysterectomy) were associated with no increased risk, whereas there was a statistically significantly increased risk associated with benign indications such as an adnexal mass, cyst or endometriosis (aOR, 2.43; P = .003). “This is important,” noted the commentators, “because in many of those cases removal of both ovaries could be avoided.”

The study also found that, compared with women who had not undergone bilateral oophorectomy, those who had also had increased frequency of cardiovascular risk factors, heart disease, and stroke at the time of their cognitive evaluation. “Additional research is needed to clarify the biological explanation of the association,” the investigators said.

The prevailing hypothesis for why premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy is associated with cognitive decline “is that the abrupt endocrine cessation of exposure to ovarian hormones accelerates the aging process,” the commentators noted. “Most important from a clinical perspective is whether these women would benefit from specific hormone replacement therapy schemes. Observational studies cannot reliably answer this question, and possibly it is time to rethink designing trials in specific groups of women who underwent bilateral oophorectomy before 46 years of age starting treatment immediately thereafter.”

In an interview Dr. Georgakis elaborated on this point, saying that, while the Women’s Health Study clearly showed no benefit of hormone replacement therapy for preventing dementia, it recruited women who were aged 65 years or older and had therefore undergone menopause more than 10-15 years earlier. “A hypothesis suggests that a critical vulnerability window exists shortly after menopause during which hormone replacement therapy might be needed to ameliorate any elevated risk,” he said. “Thus, it might make sense to reconsider a trial focused on this group of premenopausal women, who need to undergo oophorectomy at a young age (<46 years). Early initiation would be important. Unfortunately, such a trial would be difficult to conduct, because these women would need to be followed up for very long periods, as cognitive decline usually does not occur before the age of 65.”

Asked to comment on the study, Meadow Good, DO, an ob.gyn., female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeon, and physician adviser for Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women & Babies in Orlando, said this study adds credibility to previous studies showing the cognitive risk associated with premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy. “The literature is now pointing to a need to refrain from elective bilateral oophorectomy in women less than 60,” she said in an interview. “It should not be common that a women receives a bilateral oophorectomy before 60 for benign reasons.”

She added that cognition is not the only think at stake. “Bilateral oophorectomy before the age of 60 has a higher risk of incident heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and total cancers,” she said, citing a prospective cohort study within the Nurses’ Health Study.

Dr. Rocca reported financial support from the Mayo Clinic Research Committee during the conduct of the study. One coauthor reported unrestricted grants from Biogen and consulting fees from Brain Protection outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported from the authors. Dr. Georgakis, Dr. Petridou, and Dr. Good reported no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. It also used resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical record–linkage system, which is supported by the NIA, the Mayo Clinic Research Committee, and user fees. Dr. Rocca was partly funded by the Ralph S. and Beverley E. Caulkins Professorship of Neurodegenerative Diseases Research of the Mayo Clinic.

Even though younger patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) tend to be fitter and receive more intensive treatment compared with older patients, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) are remarkably similar between the two groups, according to a large phase 3 randomized trial.

“Colorectal cancer is on track to be the leading cause of cancer death in patients 20 to 49 by the year 2040, so it is important to understand survival in this population,” lead author Marla Lipsyc-Sharf, MD, Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston, said in an interview. “The most important point for oncologists to take away from our study is that the survival of young-onset colorectal cancer does not seem to be different from that in older patients.”

Previous studies comparing survival in younger versus older patients with metastatic CRC have yielded conflicting results. Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf and colleagues set out to clarify the literature in their large randomized study, published online on Oct. 12 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf and colleagues enrolled 2,326 eligible patients in the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB)/SWOG 80405 (Alliance) trial to evaluate the efficacy of chemotherapy plus a biologic to treat metastatic CRC. Slightly over 22% of participants (514 patients) were under age 50 at study enrollment, with a median age of 44.3 years vs. 62.5 in those patients older than 50.

The primary outcome was OS and secondary outcomes included PFS, defined as time from study entry until disease progression or death from any cause. At a follow-up of 6 years, median OS was 27.07 months in the young CRC cohort compared with 26.12 months in the older CRC cohort.

Similarly, median PFS in both younger and older cohorts was virtually identical at 10.87 months versus 10.55 months, respectively. Patients younger than age 35 did have a shorter median OS of 21.95 months and PFS of 9.33 months compared with 26.12 months and 10.55 months, respectively, for those 50 and older, but neither difference was significant.

The similar OS between the younger and older patients with metastatic CRC is “particularly interesting,” the authors noted, given that younger patients should, in theory, have done better than their older peers. Younger patients tend to have better overall health (less diabetes, greater physical activity), have more left-sided CRC, (which is associated with a better prognosis), and receive more intensive therapy.

“It’s not clear at this time why the young-onset CRC patients – despite having these more favorable characteristics – did not have improved survival compared to older patients,” Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf said.  

The authors suggest that this similar survival may be because younger patients tend to be diagnosed at more advanced stages, due to differences in underlying tumor biology, or due to other unknown factors. However, “additional investigation into the tumor biology, clinical characteristics, and optimal treatment of patients with [early onset] CRC is essential,” the authors concluded.

The work was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and, in part, by Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Even though younger patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) tend to be fitter and receive more intensive treatment compared with older patients, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) are remarkably similar between the two groups, according to a large phase 3 randomized trial.

“Colorectal cancer is on track to be the leading cause of cancer death in patients 20 to 49 by the year 2040, so it is important to understand survival in this population,” lead author Marla Lipsyc-Sharf, MD, Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston, said in an interview. “The most important point for oncologists to take away from our study is that the survival of young-onset colorectal cancer does not seem to be different from that in older patients.”

Previous studies comparing survival in younger versus older patients with metastatic CRC have yielded conflicting results. Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf and colleagues set out to clarify the literature in their large randomized study, published online on Oct. 12 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf and colleagues enrolled 2,326 eligible patients in the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB)/SWOG 80405 (Alliance) trial to evaluate the efficacy of chemotherapy plus a biologic to treat metastatic CRC. Slightly over 22% of participants (514 patients) were under age 50 at study enrollment, with a median age of 44.3 years vs. 62.5 in those patients older than 50.

The primary outcome was OS and secondary outcomes included PFS, defined as time from study entry until disease progression or death from any cause. At a follow-up of 6 years, median OS was 27.07 months in the young CRC cohort compared with 26.12 months in the older CRC cohort.

Similarly, median PFS in both younger and older cohorts was virtually identical at 10.87 months versus 10.55 months, respectively. Patients younger than age 35 did have a shorter median OS of 21.95 months and PFS of 9.33 months compared with 26.12 months and 10.55 months, respectively, for those 50 and older, but neither difference was significant.

The similar OS between the younger and older patients with metastatic CRC is “particularly interesting,” the authors noted, given that younger patients should, in theory, have done better than their older peers. Younger patients tend to have better overall health (less diabetes, greater physical activity), have more left-sided CRC, (which is associated with a better prognosis), and receive more intensive therapy.

“It’s not clear at this time why the young-onset CRC patients – despite having these more favorable characteristics – did not have improved survival compared to older patients,” Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf said.  

The authors suggest that this similar survival may be because younger patients tend to be diagnosed at more advanced stages, due to differences in underlying tumor biology, or due to other unknown factors. However, “additional investigation into the tumor biology, clinical characteristics, and optimal treatment of patients with [early onset] CRC is essential,” the authors concluded.

The work was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and, in part, by Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Even though younger patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) tend to be fitter and receive more intensive treatment compared with older patients, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) are remarkably similar between the two groups, according to a large phase 3 randomized trial.

“Colorectal cancer is on track to be the leading cause of cancer death in patients 20 to 49 by the year 2040, so it is important to understand survival in this population,” lead author Marla Lipsyc-Sharf, MD, Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston, said in an interview. “The most important point for oncologists to take away from our study is that the survival of young-onset colorectal cancer does not seem to be different from that in older patients.”

Previous studies comparing survival in younger versus older patients with metastatic CRC have yielded conflicting results. Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf and colleagues set out to clarify the literature in their large randomized study, published online on Oct. 12 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf and colleagues enrolled 2,326 eligible patients in the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB)/SWOG 80405 (Alliance) trial to evaluate the efficacy of chemotherapy plus a biologic to treat metastatic CRC. Slightly over 22% of participants (514 patients) were under age 50 at study enrollment, with a median age of 44.3 years vs. 62.5 in those patients older than 50.

The primary outcome was OS and secondary outcomes included PFS, defined as time from study entry until disease progression or death from any cause. At a follow-up of 6 years, median OS was 27.07 months in the young CRC cohort compared with 26.12 months in the older CRC cohort.

Similarly, median PFS in both younger and older cohorts was virtually identical at 10.87 months versus 10.55 months, respectively. Patients younger than age 35 did have a shorter median OS of 21.95 months and PFS of 9.33 months compared with 26.12 months and 10.55 months, respectively, for those 50 and older, but neither difference was significant.

The similar OS between the younger and older patients with metastatic CRC is “particularly interesting,” the authors noted, given that younger patients should, in theory, have done better than their older peers. Younger patients tend to have better overall health (less diabetes, greater physical activity), have more left-sided CRC, (which is associated with a better prognosis), and receive more intensive therapy.

“It’s not clear at this time why the young-onset CRC patients – despite having these more favorable characteristics – did not have improved survival compared to older patients,” Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf said.  

The authors suggest that this similar survival may be because younger patients tend to be diagnosed at more advanced stages, due to differences in underlying tumor biology, or due to other unknown factors. However, “additional investigation into the tumor biology, clinical characteristics, and optimal treatment of patients with [early onset] CRC is essential,” the authors concluded.

The work was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and, in part, by Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Case

A 72-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes mellitus presents with acute dysuria, fever, and flank pain. She had a urinary tract infection (UTI) 3 months prior treated with nitrofurantoin. Temperature is 102° F, heart rate 112 beats per minute, and the remainder of vital signs are normal. She has left costovertebral angle tenderness. Urine microscopy shows 70 WBCs per high power field and bacteria. Is this urinary tract infection complicated?

Background

The urinary tract is divided into the upper tract, which includes the kidneys and ureters, and the lower urinary tract, which includes the bladder, urethra, and prostate. Infection of the lower urinary tract is referred to as cystitis while infection of the upper urinary tract is pyelonephritis. A UTI is the colonization of pathogen(s) within the urinary system that causes an inflammatory response resulting in symptoms and requiring treatment. UTIs occur when there is reduced urine flow, an increase in colonization risk, and when there are factors that facilitate ascent such as catheterization or incontinence.

There are an estimated 150 million cases of UTIs worldwide per year, accounting for $6 billion in health care expenditures.¹ In the inpatient setting, about 40% of nosocomial infections are associated with urinary catheters. This equates to about 1 million catheter-associated UTIs per year in the United States, and up to 40% of hospital gram-negative bacteremia per year are caused by UTIs.¹

UTIs are often classified as either uncomplicated or complicated infections, which can influence the depth of management. UTIs have a wide spectrum of symptoms and can manifest anywhere from mild dysuria treated successfully with outpatient antibiotics to florid sepsis. Uncomplicated simple cystitis is often treated as an outpatient with oral nitrofurantoin or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.² Complicated UTIs are treated with broader antimicrobial coverage, and depending on severity, could require intravenous antibiotics. Many factors affect how a UTI manifests and determining whether an infection is “uncomplicated” or “complicated” is an important first step in guiding management. Unfortunately, there are differing classifications of “complicated” UTIs, making it a complicated issue itself. We outline two common approaches.
 

Anatomic approach

A commonly recognized definition is from the American Urological Association, which states that complicated UTIs are symptomatic cases associated with the presence of “underlying, predisposing conditions and not necessarily clinical severity, invasiveness, or complications.”³ These factors include structural or functional urinary tract abnormalities or urinary instrumentation (see Table 1). These predisposing conditions can increase microbial colonization and decrease therapy efficacy, thus increasing the frequency of infection and relapse.

This population of patients is at high risk of infections with more resistant bacteria such as extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing Escherichia coli since they often lack the natural genitourinary barriers to infection. In addition, these patients more often undergo multiple antibiotic courses for their frequent infections, which also contributes to their risk of ESBL infections. Genitourinary abnormalities interfere with normal voiding, resulting in impaired flushing of bacteria. For instance, obstruction inhibits complete urinary drainage and increases the persistence of bacteria in biofilms, especially if there are stones or indwelling devices present. Biofilms usually contain a high concentration of organisms including Proteus mirabilis, Morgenella morganii, and Providencia spp.⁴ Keep in mind that, if there is an obstruction, the urinalysis might be without pyuria or bacteriuria.

Instrumentation increases infection risks through the direct introduction of bacteria into the genitourinary tract. Despite the efforts in maintaining sterility in urinary catheter placement, catheters provide a nidus for infection. Catheter-associated UTI (CAUTI) is defined by the Infectious Disease Society of America as UTIs that occur in patients with an indwelling catheter or who had a catheter removed for less than 48 hours who develop urinary symptoms and cultures positive for uropathogenic bacteria.⁴ Studies show that in general, patients with indwelling catheters will develop bacteriuria over time, with 10%-25% eventually developing symptoms.
 

Severity approach

There are other schools of thought that categorize uncomplicated versus complicated UTIs based on the severity of presentation (see Table 2). An uncomplicated UTI would be classified as symptoms and signs of simple cystitis limited to dysuria, frequency, urgency, and suprapubic pain. Using a symptom severity approach, systemic findings such as fever, chills, emesis, flank pain, costovertebral angle tenderness, or other findings of sepsis would be classified as a complicated UTI. These systemic findings would suggest an extension of infection beyond the bladder.

The argument for a symptomatic-based approach of classification is that the severity of symptoms should dictate the degree of management. Not all UTIs in the anatomic approach are severe. In fact, populations that are considered at risk for complicated UTIs by the AUA guidelines in Table 1 often have mild symptomatic cystitis or asymptomatic bacteriuria. Asymptomatic bacteriuria is the colonization of organisms in the urinary tract without active infection. For instance, bacteriuria is present in almost 100% of people with chronic indwelling catheters, 30%-40% of neurogenic bladder requiring intermittent catheterization, and 50% of elderly nursing home residents.⁴ Not all bacteriuria triggers enough of an inflammatory response to cause symptoms that require treatment.
 

Ultimate clinical judgment

Although there are multiple different society recommendations in distinguishing uncomplicated versus complicated UTIs, considering both anatomical and severity risk factors can better aid in clinical decision-making rather than abiding by one classification method alone.

Uncomplicated UTIs from the AUA guidelines can cause severe infections that might require longer courses of broad-spectrum antibiotics. On the other hand, people with anatomic abnormalities can present with mild symptoms that can be treated with a narrow-spectrum antibiotic for a standard time course. Recognizing the severity of the infection and using clinical judgment aids in antibiotic stewardship.

Although the existence of algorithmic approaches can help guide clinical judgment, accounting for the spectrum of host and bacterial factors should ultimately determine the complexity of the disease and management.³ Using clinical suspicion to determine when a UTI should be treated as a complicated infection can ensure effective treatment and decrease the likelihood of sepsis, renal scarring, or end-stage disease.⁵

Back to the case

The case presents an elderly woman with diabetes presenting with sepsis from a UTI. Because of a normal urinary tract and no prior instrumentation, by the AUA definition, she would be classified as an uncomplicated UTI; however, we would classify her as a complicated UTI based on the severity of her presentation. She has a fever, tachycardia, flank pain, and costovertebral angle tenderness that are evidence of infection extending beyond the bladder. She has sepsis warranting inpatient management. Prior urine culture results could aid in determining empiric treatment while waiting for new cultures. In her case, an intravenous antibiotic with broad gram-negative coverage such as ceftriaxone would be appropriate.

Bottom line

There are multiple interpretations of complicated UTIs including both an anatomical and severity approach. Clinical judgment regarding infection severity should determine the depth of management.

Dr. Vu is a hospitalist at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. Dr. Gray is a hospitalist at the University of Kentucky and the Lexington Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

References

1. Folk CS. AUA Core Curriculum: Urinary Tract Infection (Adult). 2021 Mar 1. https://university.auanet.org/core_topic.cfm?coreid=92.

2. Gupta K et al. International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of acute uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis in women: A 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the European Society for Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Mar 1;52(5):e103-20. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciq257.

3. Johnson JR. Definition of Complicated Urinary Tract Infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 February 15;64(4):529. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw751.

4. Nicolle LE, AMMI Canada Guidelines Committee. Complicated urinary tract infection in adults. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2005;16(6):349-60. doi: 10.1155/2005/385768.

5. Melekos MD and Naber KG. Complicated urinary tract infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2000;15(4):247-56. doi: 10.1016/s0924-8579(00)00168-0.
 

Key points

• The anatomical approach to defining complicated UTIs considers the presence of underlying, predisposing conditions such as structurally or functionally abnormal genitourinary tract or urinary instrumentation or foreign bodies.
• The severity approach to defining complicated UTIs considers the severity of presentation including the presence of systemic manifestations.
• Both approaches should consider populations that are at risk for recurrent or multidrug-resistant infections and infections that can lead to high morbidity.
• Either approach can be used as a guide, but neither should replace clinical suspicion and judgment in determining the depth of treatment.

Additional reading

Choe HS et al. Summary of the UAA‐AAUS guidelines for urinary tract infections. Int J Urol. 2018 Mar;25(3):175-85. doi:10.1111/iju.13493.

Nicolle LE et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2005 Mar;40(5):643-54. doi: 10.1086/427507.

Wagenlehner FME et al. Epidemiology, definition and treatment of complicated urinary tract infections. Nat Rev Urol. 2020 Oct;17:586-600. doi:10.1038/s41585-020-0362-4.

Wallace DW et al. Urinalysis: A simple test with complicated interpretation. J Urgent Care Med. 2020 July-Aug;14(10):11-4.

Quiz

A 68-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes mellitus presents to the emergency department with acute fever, chills, dysuria, frequency, and suprapubic pain. She has associated nausea, malaise, and fatigue. She takes metformin and denies recent antibiotic use. Her temperature is 102.8° F, heart rate 118 beats per minute, blood pressure 118/71 mm Hg, and her respiratory rate is 24 breaths per minute. She is ill-appearing and has mild suprapubic tenderness. White blood cell count is 18 k/mcL. Urinalysis is positive for leukocyte esterase, nitrites, and bacteria. Urine microscopy has 120 white blood cells per high power field. What is the most appropriate treatment?

A. Azithromycin

B. Ceftriaxone

C. Cefepime and vancomycin

D. Nitrofurantoin

The answer is B. The patient presents with sepsis secondary to a urinary tract infection. Using the anatomic approach this would be classified as uncomplicated. Using the severity approach, this would be classified as a complicated urinary tract infection. With fever, chills, and signs of sepsis, it’s likely her infection extends beyond the bladder. Given the severity of her presentation, we’d favor treating her as a complicated urinary tract infection with intravenous ceftriaxone. There is no suggestion of resistance or additional MRSA risk factors requiring intravenous vancomycin or cefepime. Nitrofurantoin, although a first-line treatment for uncomplicated cystitis, would not be appropriate if there is suspicion infection extends beyond the bladder. Azithromycin is a first-line option for chlamydia trachomatis, but not a urinary tract infection.




 

Case

A 72-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes mellitus presents with acute dysuria, fever, and flank pain. She had a urinary tract infection (UTI) 3 months prior treated with nitrofurantoin. Temperature is 102° F, heart rate 112 beats per minute, and the remainder of vital signs are normal. She has left costovertebral angle tenderness. Urine microscopy shows 70 WBCs per high power field and bacteria. Is this urinary tract infection complicated?

Background

The urinary tract is divided into the upper tract, which includes the kidneys and ureters, and the lower urinary tract, which includes the bladder, urethra, and prostate. Infection of the lower urinary tract is referred to as cystitis while infection of the upper urinary tract is pyelonephritis. A UTI is the colonization of pathogen(s) within the urinary system that causes an inflammatory response resulting in symptoms and requiring treatment. UTIs occur when there is reduced urine flow, an increase in colonization risk, and when there are factors that facilitate ascent such as catheterization or incontinence.

There are an estimated 150 million cases of UTIs worldwide per year, accounting for $6 billion in health care expenditures.¹ In the inpatient setting, about 40% of nosocomial infections are associated with urinary catheters. This equates to about 1 million catheter-associated UTIs per year in the United States, and up to 40% of hospital gram-negative bacteremia per year are caused by UTIs.¹

UTIs are often classified as either uncomplicated or complicated infections, which can influence the depth of management. UTIs have a wide spectrum of symptoms and can manifest anywhere from mild dysuria treated successfully with outpatient antibiotics to florid sepsis. Uncomplicated simple cystitis is often treated as an outpatient with oral nitrofurantoin or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.² Complicated UTIs are treated with broader antimicrobial coverage, and depending on severity, could require intravenous antibiotics. Many factors affect how a UTI manifests and determining whether an infection is “uncomplicated” or “complicated” is an important first step in guiding management. Unfortunately, there are differing classifications of “complicated” UTIs, making it a complicated issue itself. We outline two common approaches.
 

Anatomic approach

A commonly recognized definition is from the American Urological Association, which states that complicated UTIs are symptomatic cases associated with the presence of “underlying, predisposing conditions and not necessarily clinical severity, invasiveness, or complications.”³ These factors include structural or functional urinary tract abnormalities or urinary instrumentation (see Table 1). These predisposing conditions can increase microbial colonization and decrease therapy efficacy, thus increasing the frequency of infection and relapse.

This population of patients is at high risk of infections with more resistant bacteria such as extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing Escherichia coli since they often lack the natural genitourinary barriers to infection. In addition, these patients more often undergo multiple antibiotic courses for their frequent infections, which also contributes to their risk of ESBL infections. Genitourinary abnormalities interfere with normal voiding, resulting in impaired flushing of bacteria. For instance, obstruction inhibits complete urinary drainage and increases the persistence of bacteria in biofilms, especially if there are stones or indwelling devices present. Biofilms usually contain a high concentration of organisms including Proteus mirabilis, Morgenella morganii, and Providencia spp.⁴ Keep in mind that, if there is an obstruction, the urinalysis might be without pyuria or bacteriuria.

Instrumentation increases infection risks through the direct introduction of bacteria into the genitourinary tract. Despite the efforts in maintaining sterility in urinary catheter placement, catheters provide a nidus for infection. Catheter-associated UTI (CAUTI) is defined by the Infectious Disease Society of America as UTIs that occur in patients with an indwelling catheter or who had a catheter removed for less than 48 hours who develop urinary symptoms and cultures positive for uropathogenic bacteria.⁴ Studies show that in general, patients with indwelling catheters will develop bacteriuria over time, with 10%-25% eventually developing symptoms.
 

Severity approach

There are other schools of thought that categorize uncomplicated versus complicated UTIs based on the severity of presentation (see Table 2). An uncomplicated UTI would be classified as symptoms and signs of simple cystitis limited to dysuria, frequency, urgency, and suprapubic pain. Using a symptom severity approach, systemic findings such as fever, chills, emesis, flank pain, costovertebral angle tenderness, or other findings of sepsis would be classified as a complicated UTI. These systemic findings would suggest an extension of infection beyond the bladder.

The argument for a symptomatic-based approach of classification is that the severity of symptoms should dictate the degree of management. Not all UTIs in the anatomic approach are severe. In fact, populations that are considered at risk for complicated UTIs by the AUA guidelines in Table 1 often have mild symptomatic cystitis or asymptomatic bacteriuria. Asymptomatic bacteriuria is the colonization of organisms in the urinary tract without active infection. For instance, bacteriuria is present in almost 100% of people with chronic indwelling catheters, 30%-40% of neurogenic bladder requiring intermittent catheterization, and 50% of elderly nursing home residents.⁴ Not all bacteriuria triggers enough of an inflammatory response to cause symptoms that require treatment.
 

Ultimate clinical judgment

Although there are multiple different society recommendations in distinguishing uncomplicated versus complicated UTIs, considering both anatomical and severity risk factors can better aid in clinical decision-making rather than abiding by one classification method alone.

Uncomplicated UTIs from the AUA guidelines can cause severe infections that might require longer courses of broad-spectrum antibiotics. On the other hand, people with anatomic abnormalities can present with mild symptoms that can be treated with a narrow-spectrum antibiotic for a standard time course. Recognizing the severity of the infection and using clinical judgment aids in antibiotic stewardship.

Although the existence of algorithmic approaches can help guide clinical judgment, accounting for the spectrum of host and bacterial factors should ultimately determine the complexity of the disease and management.³ Using clinical suspicion to determine when a UTI should be treated as a complicated infection can ensure effective treatment and decrease the likelihood of sepsis, renal scarring, or end-stage disease.⁵

Back to the case

The case presents an elderly woman with diabetes presenting with sepsis from a UTI. Because of a normal urinary tract and no prior instrumentation, by the AUA definition, she would be classified as an uncomplicated UTI; however, we would classify her as a complicated UTI based on the severity of her presentation. She has a fever, tachycardia, flank pain, and costovertebral angle tenderness that are evidence of infection extending beyond the bladder. She has sepsis warranting inpatient management. Prior urine culture results could aid in determining empiric treatment while waiting for new cultures. In her case, an intravenous antibiotic with broad gram-negative coverage such as ceftriaxone would be appropriate.

Bottom line

There are multiple interpretations of complicated UTIs including both an anatomical and severity approach. Clinical judgment regarding infection severity should determine the depth of management.

Dr. Vu is a hospitalist at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. Dr. Gray is a hospitalist at the University of Kentucky and the Lexington Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

References

1. Folk CS. AUA Core Curriculum: Urinary Tract Infection (Adult). 2021 Mar 1. https://university.auanet.org/core_topic.cfm?coreid=92.

2. Gupta K et al. International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of acute uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis in women: A 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the European Society for Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Mar 1;52(5):e103-20. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciq257.

3. Johnson JR. Definition of Complicated Urinary Tract Infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 February 15;64(4):529. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw751.

4. Nicolle LE, AMMI Canada Guidelines Committee. Complicated urinary tract infection in adults. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2005;16(6):349-60. doi: 10.1155/2005/385768.

5. Melekos MD and Naber KG. Complicated urinary tract infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2000;15(4):247-56. doi: 10.1016/s0924-8579(00)00168-0.
 

Key points

• The anatomical approach to defining complicated UTIs considers the presence of underlying, predisposing conditions such as structurally or functionally abnormal genitourinary tract or urinary instrumentation or foreign bodies.
• The severity approach to defining complicated UTIs considers the severity of presentation including the presence of systemic manifestations.
• Both approaches should consider populations that are at risk for recurrent or multidrug-resistant infections and infections that can lead to high morbidity.
• Either approach can be used as a guide, but neither should replace clinical suspicion and judgment in determining the depth of treatment.

Additional reading

Choe HS et al. Summary of the UAA‐AAUS guidelines for urinary tract infections. Int J Urol. 2018 Mar;25(3):175-85. doi:10.1111/iju.13493.

Nicolle LE et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2005 Mar;40(5):643-54. doi: 10.1086/427507.

Wagenlehner FME et al. Epidemiology, definition and treatment of complicated urinary tract infections. Nat Rev Urol. 2020 Oct;17:586-600. doi:10.1038/s41585-020-0362-4.

Wallace DW et al. Urinalysis: A simple test with complicated interpretation. J Urgent Care Med. 2020 July-Aug;14(10):11-4.

Quiz

A 68-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes mellitus presents to the emergency department with acute fever, chills, dysuria, frequency, and suprapubic pain. She has associated nausea, malaise, and fatigue. She takes metformin and denies recent antibiotic use. Her temperature is 102.8° F, heart rate 118 beats per minute, blood pressure 118/71 mm Hg, and her respiratory rate is 24 breaths per minute. She is ill-appearing and has mild suprapubic tenderness. White blood cell count is 18 k/mcL. Urinalysis is positive for leukocyte esterase, nitrites, and bacteria. Urine microscopy has 120 white blood cells per high power field. What is the most appropriate treatment?

A. Azithromycin

B. Ceftriaxone

C. Cefepime and vancomycin

D. Nitrofurantoin

The answer is B. The patient presents with sepsis secondary to a urinary tract infection. Using the anatomic approach this would be classified as uncomplicated. Using the severity approach, this would be classified as a complicated urinary tract infection. With fever, chills, and signs of sepsis, it’s likely her infection extends beyond the bladder. Given the severity of her presentation, we’d favor treating her as a complicated urinary tract infection with intravenous ceftriaxone. There is no suggestion of resistance or additional MRSA risk factors requiring intravenous vancomycin or cefepime. Nitrofurantoin, although a first-line treatment for uncomplicated cystitis, would not be appropriate if there is suspicion infection extends beyond the bladder. Azithromycin is a first-line option for chlamydia trachomatis, but not a urinary tract infection.




 

Case

A 72-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes mellitus presents with acute dysuria, fever, and flank pain. She had a urinary tract infection (UTI) 3 months prior treated with nitrofurantoin. Temperature is 102° F, heart rate 112 beats per minute, and the remainder of vital signs are normal. She has left costovertebral angle tenderness. Urine microscopy shows 70 WBCs per high power field and bacteria. Is this urinary tract infection complicated?

Background

The urinary tract is divided into the upper tract, which includes the kidneys and ureters, and the lower urinary tract, which includes the bladder, urethra, and prostate. Infection of the lower urinary tract is referred to as cystitis while infection of the upper urinary tract is pyelonephritis. A UTI is the colonization of pathogen(s) within the urinary system that causes an inflammatory response resulting in symptoms and requiring treatment. UTIs occur when there is reduced urine flow, an increase in colonization risk, and when there are factors that facilitate ascent such as catheterization or incontinence.

There are an estimated 150 million cases of UTIs worldwide per year, accounting for $6 billion in health care expenditures.¹ In the inpatient setting, about 40% of nosocomial infections are associated with urinary catheters. This equates to about 1 million catheter-associated UTIs per year in the United States, and up to 40% of hospital gram-negative bacteremia per year are caused by UTIs.¹

UTIs are often classified as either uncomplicated or complicated infections, which can influence the depth of management. UTIs have a wide spectrum of symptoms and can manifest anywhere from mild dysuria treated successfully with outpatient antibiotics to florid sepsis. Uncomplicated simple cystitis is often treated as an outpatient with oral nitrofurantoin or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.² Complicated UTIs are treated with broader antimicrobial coverage, and depending on severity, could require intravenous antibiotics. Many factors affect how a UTI manifests and determining whether an infection is “uncomplicated” or “complicated” is an important first step in guiding management. Unfortunately, there are differing classifications of “complicated” UTIs, making it a complicated issue itself. We outline two common approaches.
 

Anatomic approach

A commonly recognized definition is from the American Urological Association, which states that complicated UTIs are symptomatic cases associated with the presence of “underlying, predisposing conditions and not necessarily clinical severity, invasiveness, or complications.”³ These factors include structural or functional urinary tract abnormalities or urinary instrumentation (see Table 1). These predisposing conditions can increase microbial colonization and decrease therapy efficacy, thus increasing the frequency of infection and relapse.

This population of patients is at high risk of infections with more resistant bacteria such as extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing Escherichia coli since they often lack the natural genitourinary barriers to infection. In addition, these patients more often undergo multiple antibiotic courses for their frequent infections, which also contributes to their risk of ESBL infections. Genitourinary abnormalities interfere with normal voiding, resulting in impaired flushing of bacteria. For instance, obstruction inhibits complete urinary drainage and increases the persistence of bacteria in biofilms, especially if there are stones or indwelling devices present. Biofilms usually contain a high concentration of organisms including Proteus mirabilis, Morgenella morganii, and Providencia spp.⁴ Keep in mind that, if there is an obstruction, the urinalysis might be without pyuria or bacteriuria.

Instrumentation increases infection risks through the direct introduction of bacteria into the genitourinary tract. Despite the efforts in maintaining sterility in urinary catheter placement, catheters provide a nidus for infection. Catheter-associated UTI (CAUTI) is defined by the Infectious Disease Society of America as UTIs that occur in patients with an indwelling catheter or who had a catheter removed for less than 48 hours who develop urinary symptoms and cultures positive for uropathogenic bacteria.⁴ Studies show that in general, patients with indwelling catheters will develop bacteriuria over time, with 10%-25% eventually developing symptoms.
 

Severity approach

There are other schools of thought that categorize uncomplicated versus complicated UTIs based on the severity of presentation (see Table 2). An uncomplicated UTI would be classified as symptoms and signs of simple cystitis limited to dysuria, frequency, urgency, and suprapubic pain. Using a symptom severity approach, systemic findings such as fever, chills, emesis, flank pain, costovertebral angle tenderness, or other findings of sepsis would be classified as a complicated UTI. These systemic findings would suggest an extension of infection beyond the bladder.

The argument for a symptomatic-based approach of classification is that the severity of symptoms should dictate the degree of management. Not all UTIs in the anatomic approach are severe. In fact, populations that are considered at risk for complicated UTIs by the AUA guidelines in Table 1 often have mild symptomatic cystitis or asymptomatic bacteriuria. Asymptomatic bacteriuria is the colonization of organisms in the urinary tract without active infection. For instance, bacteriuria is present in almost 100% of people with chronic indwelling catheters, 30%-40% of neurogenic bladder requiring intermittent catheterization, and 50% of elderly nursing home residents.⁴ Not all bacteriuria triggers enough of an inflammatory response to cause symptoms that require treatment.
 

Ultimate clinical judgment

Although there are multiple different society recommendations in distinguishing uncomplicated versus complicated UTIs, considering both anatomical and severity risk factors can better aid in clinical decision-making rather than abiding by one classification method alone.

Uncomplicated UTIs from the AUA guidelines can cause severe infections that might require longer courses of broad-spectrum antibiotics. On the other hand, people with anatomic abnormalities can present with mild symptoms that can be treated with a narrow-spectrum antibiotic for a standard time course. Recognizing the severity of the infection and using clinical judgment aids in antibiotic stewardship.

Although the existence of algorithmic approaches can help guide clinical judgment, accounting for the spectrum of host and bacterial factors should ultimately determine the complexity of the disease and management.³ Using clinical suspicion to determine when a UTI should be treated as a complicated infection can ensure effective treatment and decrease the likelihood of sepsis, renal scarring, or end-stage disease.⁵

Back to the case

The case presents an elderly woman with diabetes presenting with sepsis from a UTI. Because of a normal urinary tract and no prior instrumentation, by the AUA definition, she would be classified as an uncomplicated UTI; however, we would classify her as a complicated UTI based on the severity of her presentation. She has a fever, tachycardia, flank pain, and costovertebral angle tenderness that are evidence of infection extending beyond the bladder. She has sepsis warranting inpatient management. Prior urine culture results could aid in determining empiric treatment while waiting for new cultures. In her case, an intravenous antibiotic with broad gram-negative coverage such as ceftriaxone would be appropriate.

Bottom line

There are multiple interpretations of complicated UTIs including both an anatomical and severity approach. Clinical judgment regarding infection severity should determine the depth of management.

Dr. Vu is a hospitalist at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. Dr. Gray is a hospitalist at the University of Kentucky and the Lexington Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

References

1. Folk CS. AUA Core Curriculum: Urinary Tract Infection (Adult). 2021 Mar 1. https://university.auanet.org/core_topic.cfm?coreid=92.

2. Gupta K et al. International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of acute uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis in women: A 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the European Society for Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Clin Infect Dis. 2011 Mar 1;52(5):e103-20. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciq257.

3. Johnson JR. Definition of Complicated Urinary Tract Infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 February 15;64(4):529. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw751.

4. Nicolle LE, AMMI Canada Guidelines Committee. Complicated urinary tract infection in adults. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2005;16(6):349-60. doi: 10.1155/2005/385768.

5. Melekos MD and Naber KG. Complicated urinary tract infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2000;15(4):247-56. doi: 10.1016/s0924-8579(00)00168-0.
 

Key points

• The anatomical approach to defining complicated UTIs considers the presence of underlying, predisposing conditions such as structurally or functionally abnormal genitourinary tract or urinary instrumentation or foreign bodies.
• The severity approach to defining complicated UTIs considers the severity of presentation including the presence of systemic manifestations.
• Both approaches should consider populations that are at risk for recurrent or multidrug-resistant infections and infections that can lead to high morbidity.
• Either approach can be used as a guide, but neither should replace clinical suspicion and judgment in determining the depth of treatment.

Additional reading

Choe HS et al. Summary of the UAA‐AAUS guidelines for urinary tract infections. Int J Urol. 2018 Mar;25(3):175-85. doi:10.1111/iju.13493.

Nicolle LE et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2005 Mar;40(5):643-54. doi: 10.1086/427507.

Wagenlehner FME et al. Epidemiology, definition and treatment of complicated urinary tract infections. Nat Rev Urol. 2020 Oct;17:586-600. doi:10.1038/s41585-020-0362-4.

Wallace DW et al. Urinalysis: A simple test with complicated interpretation. J Urgent Care Med. 2020 July-Aug;14(10):11-4.

Quiz

A 68-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes mellitus presents to the emergency department with acute fever, chills, dysuria, frequency, and suprapubic pain. She has associated nausea, malaise, and fatigue. She takes metformin and denies recent antibiotic use. Her temperature is 102.8° F, heart rate 118 beats per minute, blood pressure 118/71 mm Hg, and her respiratory rate is 24 breaths per minute. She is ill-appearing and has mild suprapubic tenderness. White blood cell count is 18 k/mcL. Urinalysis is positive for leukocyte esterase, nitrites, and bacteria. Urine microscopy has 120 white blood cells per high power field. What is the most appropriate treatment?

A. Azithromycin

B. Ceftriaxone

C. Cefepime and vancomycin

D. Nitrofurantoin

The answer is B. The patient presents with sepsis secondary to a urinary tract infection. Using the anatomic approach this would be classified as uncomplicated. Using the severity approach, this would be classified as a complicated urinary tract infection. With fever, chills, and signs of sepsis, it’s likely her infection extends beyond the bladder. Given the severity of her presentation, we’d favor treating her as a complicated urinary tract infection with intravenous ceftriaxone. There is no suggestion of resistance or additional MRSA risk factors requiring intravenous vancomycin or cefepime. Nitrofurantoin, although a first-line treatment for uncomplicated cystitis, would not be appropriate if there is suspicion infection extends beyond the bladder. Azithromycin is a first-line option for chlamydia trachomatis, but not a urinary tract infection.